Last night was another very productive meeting of the Birmingham Against The Cuts group.
Budget Cuts
There was a lengthy report on the main features of the Council's £100m + cuts plan for 2012/3 including :
Adoption & Fostering - £1m cuts
Childrens Placements - £6.7m cuts. The consultation on the strategy has just closed.
Home Care & Adult Social Care Services - 118 home care jobs cut and a plan to privatise all adult care services
Shelforce - £2m cuts and jobs of disable workers threatened. Awaiting a Cabinet report
Adult Education - cuts of around 172 jobs threatened
Connexions - compulsory redundancies stopped but still up to £4m cuts
Leisure Centres - threatened with privatisation
Libraries - 28% cut in funding.
BATC is preparing a leaflet for the public highlighting 5 - 6 major areas of cuts around which we will be campaigning. There was discussion about preparing a Pledge which the public can send to their councillors about addressing the cuts in key areas.
We are also supporting a street protest in the city centre on the Chancellor's Budget Day, 21st March. We understand that PCS will be holding a protest too.
Connexions and Youth Unemployment
Charlie Friel, the UNISON Connexions convenor gave a report on the victory over threatened compulsory redundancies and the continuing financial cuts. He made really important point about the continuing need to campaign against youth unemployment. He said the the 16 - 24 year olds (a period of 8 years) have around 1.1 million unemployed. The remaining age range from 25 to 65 (40 years) have around 1.7 million unemployed. That's a startling reality check of the harsh effects of the crisis on a new generation of workers.
Privatisation of Leisure and Sports Services
Then we considered the £200 million Leisure and Sports services privatisation plan by the Council. People were genuinely outraged. The Handsworth BATC Group was quick off them mark in holding a protest stall outside Handsworth centre Saturday. They were amazed at the response from the public and quickly collected over 200 signatures to a petition opposing the privatisation.
Now BATC has asked all its local groups to hold a protest stall outside as many leisure centres as they can on Saturday 10 March. The details of local arrangements will be posted on the BATC website.
Workfare
Local anti-workfare groups, including Right to Work and the UKUncut organisation are organising a series of events :
Saturday 3 March outside Poundland in Union Passageway, City Centre
Wednesday 7 March 7.00pm a Kings Heath Anti-Workfare meeting at the All Saints Centre
Thursday 29 March Public Meeting at the Council House
NHS Bill
BATC will be organising a protest outside the City Road Hospital after work on March 7th to coincide with the national lobby against the NHS Bill. City Road are making huge cuts in health service budgets.
Save Our Railways
BATC is supporting a public meeting in late May/early June organised by the rail unions to highlight planned cuts in rails services and the massive hike in rail fares.
Saltley Gate Commemoration
The West Midlands Anti Cuts Groups are planning a weekend of events to mark the 40th Anniversary of the Battle of Saltley Gate at the end of June, with a special performance of the Banner Theatre Saltley Gates show and a Saturday campaigning and organising conference.
Impact of Cuts Against the LGBT Community
One of our BATC members is researching the impact of cuts on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community. He has already identified cuts to homeless people, many of whom are LGBT; changes to housing and other benefits; cuts in spending on HIV and health services for transgender people; and the return of discrimination along the lines of the hated Section 28 in Free Schools. BATC will support leaflets and campaigning for the Birmingham Pride events later this year.
Next Meeting - Monday 12th March, 6.30pm, Birmingham UNISON Branch Office
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
PDRs, Trade Union Facilities, Future Plans for HR and Outsourcing of Customer Services
Yesterday, we had our regular fortnightly meeting with corporate HR representatives where we keep each other up to date with developments on the industrial relations front with the city council.
First item on the agenda was Pay Progression - or the outcome of the recent annual process for giving increments to staff based on the Performance and Development Review (PDR) system of measuring performance against objectives. This year just over a quarter (26%) of the 21,000 non-schools staff received an annual increment in pay because of their PDR score. This is a big drop from the previous year when it was around 50%.
We are gathering as much information as we can about the payment of increments for the council. In the meeting we were given information by Grade and by Directorate and some breakdowns by gender, ethnicity and disability status. However the information we had did not allow us to test whether there are any equality differences in those who got an increment and those who did not. We have asked for further information to be provided.
We also requested equality breakdowns for those who were set the higher scoring "challenging" objectives, which you need to have to have any real chance of getting an A or B score in the PDRs.
Furthermore, we have requested similar information on the distribution of the A to E scores by equality groupings. The A - E score is important not just for determining whether a member of staff gets an annual increment, but also accounts for around a quarter of the score used in the redundancy selection criteria which could make the difference between being made redundant or getting a new job in a restructuring exercise. We have very grave concerns about the fairness of the PDR system, and whether there is any hidden discrimination in the scores given.
Next we discussed the council's review of trade union facility time. There was a Scrutiny Review last year which recommended a review of facility arrangements. The Council informed us that they intended to give 6 months notice of withdrawal now from the current facilities agreements and to commence consultation about their replacement. We have huge concerns that this is putting a gun to our heads during the review period. We have suggested that the council talks with us within the review before giving notice of terminating the agreements so we can have some confidence about where we are heading. The outcome of the discussion is unclear. We hope they will listen to our concerns. This will be a test of how much confidence we can have of the outcome of this review. There will be terms of reference drawn up and another meeting in a fortnight.
Then we received a briefing about proposals for trading in HR services. They face a £4.5m cut in their £25m budget, over two and a half years, having cut 40% already. So they are proposing to identify core HR services which they will provide free to council Directorates and then to introduce a charging system for any additional work directorates may want from HR. They are also planning to sell HR services externally, probably through setting up an HR Wholly Owned Company (WOC) into which HR staff can be seconded for short periods, or for part of their working week to undertake work of chargeable external bodies. HR also propose to make use of small often sole trader consultancy firms on a short term basis to deal with any temporary increase in work from the internal and external charging system. The consultancy charges we were told would be equivalent to the salaries of internal staff.
This set of ideas is news to us. We will have to give serious thought to this. We oppose the use of management consultants in the council, which still costs millions of pounds a year. And we feel there is enough internal expertise and enough people with these skills being threatened with redundancy. And we are worried about the WOCs. Are these a first step towards even more privatisation ?
Finally we had an update on the Customer First business transformation process, which at this point in time involves attempts to transfer various groups of staff dealing with calls and contact from the public to Capita's Birmingham Call Centre. If it moves, Capita wants to take it over and make a profit out of it. We are resisting all these privatisations and also attempting to negotiate the best terms for our members where we are unsuccessful in stopping them.
On interesting case in point is the Older Peoples Access Service which handles enquiries about adult social services. The council wants to transfer them to Capita. But we and the OPAS staff are standing in the way of the steam roller. In recent weeks, the consultation has been suspended by management. It appears that they are re-examining the financial and business case for the transfer. We are insisting on seeing the draft contract for the Capita service, the business case and all the documentation required for any TUPE transfer or TUPE/secondment arrangement. We are told that the option of seconding staff to the Capita service is still possible. We and the staff of the service are fighting for this, if we cannot stop the privatisation.
The OPAS service is one of the most critical and sensitive public services to be considered for transfer to Capita. The calls they deal with from the public about adult social care can be very complex and sophisticated. They are often responding to people who are going through huge crises in their lives and those of the people they are caring for. They need the greatest sensitivity, understanding and expertise. What we don't want is a privatised call centre but a caring public service.
So this was just one of our regular meetings, but all the issues addressed are fundamental to our members and to our services.
First item on the agenda was Pay Progression - or the outcome of the recent annual process for giving increments to staff based on the Performance and Development Review (PDR) system of measuring performance against objectives. This year just over a quarter (26%) of the 21,000 non-schools staff received an annual increment in pay because of their PDR score. This is a big drop from the previous year when it was around 50%.
We are gathering as much information as we can about the payment of increments for the council. In the meeting we were given information by Grade and by Directorate and some breakdowns by gender, ethnicity and disability status. However the information we had did not allow us to test whether there are any equality differences in those who got an increment and those who did not. We have asked for further information to be provided.
We also requested equality breakdowns for those who were set the higher scoring "challenging" objectives, which you need to have to have any real chance of getting an A or B score in the PDRs.
Furthermore, we have requested similar information on the distribution of the A to E scores by equality groupings. The A - E score is important not just for determining whether a member of staff gets an annual increment, but also accounts for around a quarter of the score used in the redundancy selection criteria which could make the difference between being made redundant or getting a new job in a restructuring exercise. We have very grave concerns about the fairness of the PDR system, and whether there is any hidden discrimination in the scores given.
Next we discussed the council's review of trade union facility time. There was a Scrutiny Review last year which recommended a review of facility arrangements. The Council informed us that they intended to give 6 months notice of withdrawal now from the current facilities agreements and to commence consultation about their replacement. We have huge concerns that this is putting a gun to our heads during the review period. We have suggested that the council talks with us within the review before giving notice of terminating the agreements so we can have some confidence about where we are heading. The outcome of the discussion is unclear. We hope they will listen to our concerns. This will be a test of how much confidence we can have of the outcome of this review. There will be terms of reference drawn up and another meeting in a fortnight.
Then we received a briefing about proposals for trading in HR services. They face a £4.5m cut in their £25m budget, over two and a half years, having cut 40% already. So they are proposing to identify core HR services which they will provide free to council Directorates and then to introduce a charging system for any additional work directorates may want from HR. They are also planning to sell HR services externally, probably through setting up an HR Wholly Owned Company (WOC) into which HR staff can be seconded for short periods, or for part of their working week to undertake work of chargeable external bodies. HR also propose to make use of small often sole trader consultancy firms on a short term basis to deal with any temporary increase in work from the internal and external charging system. The consultancy charges we were told would be equivalent to the salaries of internal staff.
This set of ideas is news to us. We will have to give serious thought to this. We oppose the use of management consultants in the council, which still costs millions of pounds a year. And we feel there is enough internal expertise and enough people with these skills being threatened with redundancy. And we are worried about the WOCs. Are these a first step towards even more privatisation ?
Finally we had an update on the Customer First business transformation process, which at this point in time involves attempts to transfer various groups of staff dealing with calls and contact from the public to Capita's Birmingham Call Centre. If it moves, Capita wants to take it over and make a profit out of it. We are resisting all these privatisations and also attempting to negotiate the best terms for our members where we are unsuccessful in stopping them.
On interesting case in point is the Older Peoples Access Service which handles enquiries about adult social services. The council wants to transfer them to Capita. But we and the OPAS staff are standing in the way of the steam roller. In recent weeks, the consultation has been suspended by management. It appears that they are re-examining the financial and business case for the transfer. We are insisting on seeing the draft contract for the Capita service, the business case and all the documentation required for any TUPE transfer or TUPE/secondment arrangement. We are told that the option of seconding staff to the Capita service is still possible. We and the staff of the service are fighting for this, if we cannot stop the privatisation.
The OPAS service is one of the most critical and sensitive public services to be considered for transfer to Capita. The calls they deal with from the public about adult social care can be very complex and sophisticated. They are often responding to people who are going through huge crises in their lives and those of the people they are caring for. They need the greatest sensitivity, understanding and expertise. What we don't want is a privatised call centre but a caring public service.
So this was just one of our regular meetings, but all the issues addressed are fundamental to our members and to our services.
Monday, February 13, 2012
A Response To Stefan Cross Solicitors Over Equal Pay
Recently, a letter was sent out by Stefan Cross solicitors in Birmingham essentially claiming that UNISON and its legal representatives had failed to represent members effectively in Equal Pay cases in the city. This is not accurate so we are writing to set the record straight.
By now many members who are equal pay claimants will have received a letter from UNISON’s solicitors informing them of the current position.
UNISON will not recommend that members settle claims for the unsatisfactory amounts that have been offered by the City Council and is currently in negotiations with the City Council on this issue. If Birmingham City Council fails to make adequate offers then the union is prepared to pursue cases through the Employment Tribunals.
Where the union has had to take legal action elsewhere it has been successful in obtaining favourable outcomes on behalf of members and we are determined that the same will apply in Birmingham.
My colleague Mark Rose is putting together a newsletter for members just to remind people about the huge amounts of work which has been undertaken by the branch and all other levels of the union on equal pay in the city. This union and Birmingham branch especially has a proud record of getting very good results for members on equal pay. It is time to get that message out loud and clear.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
By now many members who are equal pay claimants will have received a letter from UNISON’s solicitors informing them of the current position.
UNISON will not recommend that members settle claims for the unsatisfactory amounts that have been offered by the City Council and is currently in negotiations with the City Council on this issue. If Birmingham City Council fails to make adequate offers then the union is prepared to pursue cases through the Employment Tribunals.
Where the union has had to take legal action elsewhere it has been successful in obtaining favourable outcomes on behalf of members and we are determined that the same will apply in Birmingham.
My colleague Mark Rose is putting together a newsletter for members just to remind people about the huge amounts of work which has been undertaken by the branch and all other levels of the union on equal pay in the city. This union and Birmingham branch especially has a proud record of getting very good results for members on equal pay. It is time to get that message out loud and clear.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Connexions Fightback Stops Compulsory Redundancies
We heard the most fantastic news today. The threat of compulsory redundancies for Birmingham Connexions staff has been withdrawn. They will not be going through the redundancy selection process which was due to start at the end of February.As the staff notice from the Acting Lead Officer for Connexions says "no further redundancies from our service are required at this stage".
Just last week we were steeling ourselves to re-commence the lobbying process to defend Connexions members from compulsory redundancies for a second year running. In the city council's budgetary Section 188 notice for the cuts for the next financial year, they threatened to cut 105 out of 172 full time equivalent posts.
Now management has announced that through various means, including voluntary redundancies and redeployment elsewhere, they will be able to avoid compulsory redundancies. There is even agreement that the service can carry on with a projected £870,000 overspend on a £3.8 million budget.
There will still be terrible service cuts, with the closure of offices in Northfield, Yardley and Erdington. And the service will be a targetted one, not a universal one anymore. We continue to oppose these cuts in service and the drastic impact these will have on a generation of young people in the city who are facing the worst conditions in living memory to enter the jobs market.
BUT without the opposition of our stewards committee in Connexions, the Connexions staff themselves, our campaigning allies in Birmingham Against The Cuts and all those who have supported the Save Connexions campaign, the cuts would have been far, far, worse.
This is a victory for those who have been prepared to take industrial action, to take round petitions, to hand out leaflets to the public, to lobby their councillors, to march on the Council House, to speak at meetings throughout the city, to give endless interviews to the media and above all to never give up.
So well done Connexions stewards and members and thanks to all who have supported them.
We do not just stop there. There are always more threats to follow. The Government is washing its hands of its responsibilities towards careers advice for young people. Future funding will need to come more from cash-strapped schools. But we retain our union organisation within Connexions and the Connexions members have another well-earned victory under their belts.
We need to continue to make the case for the restoration of Connexions. The Council has a vital role to support tens of thousands of young people in the city. We cannot abandon young people to a future on the dole.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Just last week we were steeling ourselves to re-commence the lobbying process to defend Connexions members from compulsory redundancies for a second year running. In the city council's budgetary Section 188 notice for the cuts for the next financial year, they threatened to cut 105 out of 172 full time equivalent posts.
Now management has announced that through various means, including voluntary redundancies and redeployment elsewhere, they will be able to avoid compulsory redundancies. There is even agreement that the service can carry on with a projected £870,000 overspend on a £3.8 million budget.
There will still be terrible service cuts, with the closure of offices in Northfield, Yardley and Erdington. And the service will be a targetted one, not a universal one anymore. We continue to oppose these cuts in service and the drastic impact these will have on a generation of young people in the city who are facing the worst conditions in living memory to enter the jobs market.
BUT without the opposition of our stewards committee in Connexions, the Connexions staff themselves, our campaigning allies in Birmingham Against The Cuts and all those who have supported the Save Connexions campaign, the cuts would have been far, far, worse.
This is a victory for those who have been prepared to take industrial action, to take round petitions, to hand out leaflets to the public, to lobby their councillors, to march on the Council House, to speak at meetings throughout the city, to give endless interviews to the media and above all to never give up.
So well done Connexions stewards and members and thanks to all who have supported them.
We do not just stop there. There are always more threats to follow. The Government is washing its hands of its responsibilities towards careers advice for young people. Future funding will need to come more from cash-strapped schools. But we retain our union organisation within Connexions and the Connexions members have another well-earned victory under their belts.
We need to continue to make the case for the restoration of Connexions. The Council has a vital role to support tens of thousands of young people in the city. We cannot abandon young people to a future on the dole.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Sunday, February 12, 2012
For Sale - Birmingham's Leisure and Sports Facilities
The City Council has just announced a £200m privatisation process covering all the sports and leisure facilities in Birmingham. They have put a notice in the Official Journal of the EU seeking companies to come forward by 12 March 2012 if they would like to submit at an unspecified later date a tender to design, build, repair, refurbish, finance, operate or maintain any group of the council’s sports and leisure facilities. Staff working for these services may be transfered to the private companies winning the contracts, under TUPE.
The list of current services covered by the contracts include, but are not limited to :
— Alexander Stadium,
— Beeches Pool,
— Billesley Indoor Tennis Centre,
— Castle Vale Pool,
— Cocks Moor Wood Leisure Centre,
— Erdington Pool,
— Fox Hollies Leisure Centre,
— Handsworth Leisure Centre,
— Harborne Pool and Fitness Centre,
— Kingstanding Leisure Centre,
— Linden Road Leisure Centre,
— Moseley Road Pool,
— Nechells Sports Centre,
— Newtown Pool,
— Northfield Leisure Centre,
— Saltley Leisure Centre,
— Shard End Leisure Centre,
— Small Heath Leisure Centre,
— Shenley Court,
— Sparkhill Pool and Leisure Centre,
— Stechford Cascades,
— Stockland Green Leisure Centre,
— Tiverton Road,
— Wyndley Leisure Centre.
The first contract to be awarded through this framework will be the design, build, operate and maintain contract in relation to Sparkhill Pool and Fitness Centre.
So the battle is now on to save our sports and leisure services from the hands of the profiteers.
To fight this, we will be adopting our ‘organising’ approach to build up strong local workplace organisation in the Leisure services concerned. And with this we will establish close working relationships in a joint campaign with service users and the general public.
This battle will be won through our members (and the new members who really now should join the union) and our service users taking responsibility for their futures and their services.
We need a steward or a workplace contact in every leisure and sports centre. We need lots more members to help those stewards and workplace contacts with the work that needs to be done - building up a map of all of our services and the workforce; contacting every person that works in a leisure or sports centre to encourage them to join the union and then to get active in the campaign to save our services; spreading the word to service users and the public.
We have committed, energetic and experienced branch and leisure services section officers who can start off the campaign. We have a nucleus of established stewards who can support and mentor new workplace representatives. We have the resources to develop the publicity needed by a city wide campaign.
We have a well developed community anti-cuts group, Birmingham Against The Cuts. They have set up many local BATC groups in different neighbourhoods around the city. In small ways this is paying off. The BATC groups have stopped the closure of Charles House (a respite unit for disabled children) and may soon force the re-opening of Merrishaw Day Nursery. Where we have had a strong local campaign, the council has backed off.
But every mass campaign starts with a lot of people all prepared to do small simple things to help. Put that together and you have a force to be reckoned with.
So what can you do ?
- Join our union and our campaign.
- Come to a members meeting on the privatisation threat.
- Ask your colleagues to join in.
- Make sure your workplace has a steward or a workplace contact.
We’ll be preparing publicity and petitions for the general public. We’ll be organising for our members to speak to, write to or to lobby the councillors and the MPs in the city. We will be fighting this privatisation. With your support, we can win this.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Friday, February 10, 2012
Birmingham Trade Unionists Smash Government Pay Freeze
Today I had the honour of taking the Branch Banner to the 40th Anniversary Rally to celebrate the closing of Saltley Gates on 10th February 1972.
In case there are any members of the Tax-Avoiders Alliance reading this, I should say that this was on my day off - as a part-time worker I do these things in my own time.
It was a really moving event with speeches from trade unionists who were there at the time, and especially from Arthur Scargill, still in fine form and as uncompromising as ever.
In 1972 I was still at school and not even in Brum. But I do vividly remember the impact of the strike and the victory for the NUM on us all as trade unionists for decades onwards.
1972. A conservative government in power, with inflation raging tried to introduce pay restraint.
In case there are any members of the Tax-Avoiders Alliance reading this, I should say that this was on my day off - as a part-time worker I do these things in my own time.
It was a really moving event with speeches from trade unionists who were there at the time, and especially from Arthur Scargill, still in fine form and as uncompromising as ever.
1972. A conservative government in power, with inflation raging tried to introduce pay restraint.
In 1972 the conservative Heath Government was trying to restrain pay increases and was later to introduce a pay freeze. They also sought to restrict trade unions taking industrial action through the Industrial Relations Act passed in the Autumn of 1971. Under this, a National Industrial Relations Board had the power to make strikes illegal and force the acceptance of settlements.
The TUC campaigned against the legislation with a nationwide "Kill the Bill" campaign. On 12 January 1971 the TUC held a 'day of action' in protest, with a march through London. In March, 1,500,000 members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union staged a one day strike. After the bill received royal assent, in September 1971 the TUC voted to require its member unions not to comply with its provisions (including registering as a union under the Act). The TGWU was twice fined for contempt of court over its refusal to comply. However, some smaller unions did comply and 32 were suspended from membership of the TUC at the 1972 congress.
The miners started their first national strike since 1926 on 5 January 1972 over the issue of pay. For a month they picketed power stations, and particularly Saltley Coal Depot in Birmingham. On the 9th February, the Government declared a State of Emergency. A three day week was introduced.
But trade unionists across the country had had enough of these attempts to starve the miners back to work. A call went out to Close The Gates at Saltley and 30,000 Birmingham trades unionists, mostly engineering workers, went on strike. 10,000 marched to Saltley Gates and forced them to close.
Ten days later, the Government backed down and a negotiated settlement was agreed with the NUM. The miners got a fair wage for the first time ever.
So much for history. Those days are long gone.
A Conservative Government freezing pay whilst inflation rises. Legislation to make it harder for trade unions to fight back with industrial action. Mass TUC demonstrations in London. Union members taking united strike action together. Surely that could never happen again !
But as Arthur said in 1972 and again today : Birmingham trade union members have demonstrated a great truth that when they unite together, nothing can stand in their way.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Are You the 1 in 10 ?
I have spent the last few days on an intensive training course on branch organising, part of our Birmingham organising campaign. I can't remember the last time I was able to set time aside for such training. I am always too busy fighting fires to stop and look at why there are so many fires breaking out.
This has been a very practical and fundamental look at how we can organise more effectively. I can hear members silently commenting about 'effective union organisation' just as Gandhi did to a reporter who asked what he thought about Western Civilisation - "It would be a good idea" !
The truth is, in my view, we have come well past the limits of what we can achieve through the super-hero 'servicing' model whereby many, if not most, members expect to have immediate, expert, individual representation when something goes wrong and for 'the union' to solve all their problems for them. A bit like 'Ghostbusters' - who you gonna call ?
Don't get me wrong, we still need to give good representation when needed. But now it is not just grievances and disciplinaries for a small percentage of members we have to service. We also have dozens of restructuring and job cutting exercises, thousands of members facing the possibility of redundancy, thousands losing pay under the new contract, as well as many worried they might be asked to change work location or working hours, many schools becoming Academies, transfers of services to private companies or social enterprises, to name but a few.
Just about everyone understandably has a major concern or issue. We all need our union.
The answer is, I believe, a fundamental change to the way we approach the union. We need to work towards building up strong active workplaces, with a high union membership and where management can see the members are actively involved and prepared to stand up for themselves and each other. Our greatest strength is our being a group, a collective, and a force to be reckoned with - if we work together. A union is not the Fifth Cavalry riding to the rescue, but a means by which we organise ourselves together to defend ourselves. That's the way to carry real weight with management. They may be strong, but we are many !
That's what we have been looking at on the course.
One small but powerful development in this direction of travel is to get more direct contact with our many hundreds of workplaces across the city.
How about becoming one of the '1 in 10' ? Would you be prepared to become a workplace contact ? Who would for example on occasions talk to 5 or 10 of their colleagues about a union issue - say about "what do you think about the pensions offer" or "what do you think people would be prepared to do to make the PDR system operate more fairly". And then feedback the views and information to the branch. We wouldn't ask you to do too much, talking to 5 or 10 people would be a great help.
It wouldn't necessarily take much time and effort but it would greatly strengthen our links to our membership. It would be a small but significant step towards becoming a union which really listens and relates to our membership as a whole.
Think about it and contact us if you would be prepared to do a little to help build up our local union organisation where you work. Be one of the '1 in 10' !
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
This has been a very practical and fundamental look at how we can organise more effectively. I can hear members silently commenting about 'effective union organisation' just as Gandhi did to a reporter who asked what he thought about Western Civilisation - "It would be a good idea" !
The truth is, in my view, we have come well past the limits of what we can achieve through the super-hero 'servicing' model whereby many, if not most, members expect to have immediate, expert, individual representation when something goes wrong and for 'the union' to solve all their problems for them. A bit like 'Ghostbusters' - who you gonna call ?
Don't get me wrong, we still need to give good representation when needed. But now it is not just grievances and disciplinaries for a small percentage of members we have to service. We also have dozens of restructuring and job cutting exercises, thousands of members facing the possibility of redundancy, thousands losing pay under the new contract, as well as many worried they might be asked to change work location or working hours, many schools becoming Academies, transfers of services to private companies or social enterprises, to name but a few.
Just about everyone understandably has a major concern or issue. We all need our union.
The answer is, I believe, a fundamental change to the way we approach the union. We need to work towards building up strong active workplaces, with a high union membership and where management can see the members are actively involved and prepared to stand up for themselves and each other. Our greatest strength is our being a group, a collective, and a force to be reckoned with - if we work together. A union is not the Fifth Cavalry riding to the rescue, but a means by which we organise ourselves together to defend ourselves. That's the way to carry real weight with management. They may be strong, but we are many !
That's what we have been looking at on the course.
One small but powerful development in this direction of travel is to get more direct contact with our many hundreds of workplaces across the city.
How about becoming one of the '1 in 10' ? Would you be prepared to become a workplace contact ? Who would for example on occasions talk to 5 or 10 of their colleagues about a union issue - say about "what do you think about the pensions offer" or "what do you think people would be prepared to do to make the PDR system operate more fairly". And then feedback the views and information to the branch. We wouldn't ask you to do too much, talking to 5 or 10 people would be a great help.
It wouldn't necessarily take much time and effort but it would greatly strengthen our links to our membership. It would be a small but significant step towards becoming a union which really listens and relates to our membership as a whole.
Think about it and contact us if you would be prepared to do a little to help build up our local union organisation where you work. Be one of the '1 in 10' !
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
What powers should a new elected Birmingham Mayor have ?
Today sees the close of an eight week consultation period on the powers an elected mayor should have if the referendums scheduled for May 2012 agree to this. This consultation, begun on November 1st, has been rather over shadowed by the Pensions strike but the outcome of this could have a significant impact on the political control of our council.
Birmingham is one of 12 English cities (Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield) that the Con-Dem Government would like to see directly elect a mayor with executive powers to replace the current system of councillors choosing a Leader and Cabinet members.
The plan is to hold a referendum in the 12 cities in May 2012 on whether to have a directly elected mayor.
This consultation is over the additional powers the directly mayor should have beyond control of the city council, such as over transport in the city.
UNISON's view on directly elected mayors is that we don't support the idea. We find it difficult to comment on the powers they should have, because we don't believe they should have any.
Speaking personally, I really value the system we have of councillors elected by ward who then choose amongst themselves who should be responsible for the different areas of council services, and a leader for the council.
I know my local councillors and so do my neighbours. If we have a problem or issue, we know we can get to our councillors really easily. There are advice surgeries, regular ward and constituency meetings open to the public and we can even contact them directly if we need to. That's not to say I'm happy with the decisions they make in the council, particularly when it comes to cutting our services and changing our contracts. But I respect the democratic process through which they were elected and the role of the councillors within it. And I believe they are continually responsive to their electors, to at least some degree. And I get to vote for them three years out of four.
Compare that with a single person who is elected by a million inhabitants who then can choose who will be their Cabinet members. How close will they be to their individual electors ? Maybe every four or five years when they are seeking re-election. It's the concept of the big individual political hero, rather than power being in the hands of a hundred or so councillors elected by local wards
I can understand why London would find it useful to have a city wide mayor. Their local authority services are delivered by dozens of local borough councils so it makes sense to have a cooordinating and strategic executive body and a directly elected mayor.
But Birmingham already has that coordinating and strategic body. It's called the council.
The main argument for a directly elected mayor seems to be that it might attract someone with exceptional charisma and strategic abilities to be a champion for the city. Well we've not done so badly with the old system of locally elected councillors. Birmingham has been transformed over the past few decades. It is a city I enjoy living in and am proud to call home. And it is a product of local democracy. But for how long ?
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Birmingham is one of 12 English cities (Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield) that the Con-Dem Government would like to see directly elect a mayor with executive powers to replace the current system of councillors choosing a Leader and Cabinet members.
The plan is to hold a referendum in the 12 cities in May 2012 on whether to have a directly elected mayor.
This consultation is over the additional powers the directly mayor should have beyond control of the city council, such as over transport in the city.
UNISON's view on directly elected mayors is that we don't support the idea. We find it difficult to comment on the powers they should have, because we don't believe they should have any.
Speaking personally, I really value the system we have of councillors elected by ward who then choose amongst themselves who should be responsible for the different areas of council services, and a leader for the council.
I know my local councillors and so do my neighbours. If we have a problem or issue, we know we can get to our councillors really easily. There are advice surgeries, regular ward and constituency meetings open to the public and we can even contact them directly if we need to. That's not to say I'm happy with the decisions they make in the council, particularly when it comes to cutting our services and changing our contracts. But I respect the democratic process through which they were elected and the role of the councillors within it. And I believe they are continually responsive to their electors, to at least some degree. And I get to vote for them three years out of four.
Compare that with a single person who is elected by a million inhabitants who then can choose who will be their Cabinet members. How close will they be to their individual electors ? Maybe every four or five years when they are seeking re-election. It's the concept of the big individual political hero, rather than power being in the hands of a hundred or so councillors elected by local wards
I can understand why London would find it useful to have a city wide mayor. Their local authority services are delivered by dozens of local borough councils so it makes sense to have a cooordinating and strategic executive body and a directly elected mayor.
But Birmingham already has that coordinating and strategic body. It's called the council.
The main argument for a directly elected mayor seems to be that it might attract someone with exceptional charisma and strategic abilities to be a champion for the city. Well we've not done so badly with the old system of locally elected councillors. Birmingham has been transformed over the past few decades. It is a city I enjoy living in and am proud to call home. And it is a product of local democracy. But for how long ?
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Could We Achieve No Compulsory Redundancies Next Year ?
Just before Christmas we had a consultation meeting about next year's budget cuts. We are coming to the end of a three month consultation period which will close on 6th January. There was an update from senior HR officers from each of the council's Directorates on the progress locally in making the cuts.
Birmingham is planning to cut a further £106 million from April 2012, on top of the £212 million cuts this year. The financial information is extremely complex and it is hard to get a real picture of what is happening.
This year's cuts (2011-2) included large savings to be made from reducing home to school transport for children with a range of needs; from tightening the eligibility criteria for receiving adult social care services; and from pushing down the contract rates for private adult social care services. But during the year, these plans have had to be dropped because of public opposition to cuts in school transport; because a judicial review ruled the consultation over social care criteria unlawful; and because the council says after the Southern Cross disaster, they can't squeeze independent sector care providers any harder.
So next year (2012-3), £65 million more cuts must be made to replace these three areas of cuts, plus £41 million other cuts some already planned for, others not. That's £106m, and as you can see it's complicated.
They had projected that these £106m cuts would mean up to 1,069 full time equivalent redundancies. But with some money being found elsewhere, some discovery of double counting of redundancies and with the use of voluntary redundancies, the numbers of potential compulsory redundancies have come down, perhaps to half this number or less. We are awaiting a full re-assessment of the current position on potential compulsory redundancies which is promised for the new year.
So we now ask the question - would it not be possible in an organisation with 16,500 staff to find alternative jobs for 500 or fewer people ? Can we not achieve 'no compulsory redundancies' next year ?
There are three strong weapons which can be used - another voluntary redundancy trawl, reduction of agency staff (still around £20 million plus this year) and reduced use of outside management consultants (still around £12 million this year).
Looking at the projected redundancies, there are several clusters of high levels of job losses. In Home Care 2-300 jobs are threatened. In Connexions 105 jobs are to go. In Childrens Services 140 jobs are to be cut. In the disabled work factory Shelforce, 87 would lose their jobs if Shelforce is closed. Some of these could be reduced by voluntary redundancies.
What's going on wioth these cuts? Why reduce well trained and high quality in-house Home Care when the standards of care in the private sector has just been lambasted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report ? Why savage Connexions with young people's unemployment at record rates ? Why threaten services for children in need in a city which has had a poor record of delivering a safe life for its children ? Why throw disabled people onto the dole and the mercy of the benefits system when the job market is in such a dire state ?
Surely we could put some more money into these critical services and also find alternative work in the council for those threatened with compulsory redundancy. Let's give people a little longer than the three months period on the 'Priority Movers' register to find another job in the council. Let's look closely at the skills of the potentially displaced and where they can be used elsewhere.
If the will was there, a council of the size and resourcefulness of Birmingham could do all these things and thereby give a guarantee of no compulsory redundancy even for just a year. The payback in terms of staff morale and higher committment would be immense.
But the will is not there. The council decision makers are obsessed with the bottom line of financial spreadsheets and don't pay enough attention to the misery of the real people who are being made compulsorily redundant.
So next year we must fight together for a more humane approach. It is perfectly possible to achieve. It just requires the will.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
Birmingham is planning to cut a further £106 million from April 2012, on top of the £212 million cuts this year. The financial information is extremely complex and it is hard to get a real picture of what is happening.
This year's cuts (2011-2) included large savings to be made from reducing home to school transport for children with a range of needs; from tightening the eligibility criteria for receiving adult social care services; and from pushing down the contract rates for private adult social care services. But during the year, these plans have had to be dropped because of public opposition to cuts in school transport; because a judicial review ruled the consultation over social care criteria unlawful; and because the council says after the Southern Cross disaster, they can't squeeze independent sector care providers any harder.
So next year (2012-3), £65 million more cuts must be made to replace these three areas of cuts, plus £41 million other cuts some already planned for, others not. That's £106m, and as you can see it's complicated.
They had projected that these £106m cuts would mean up to 1,069 full time equivalent redundancies. But with some money being found elsewhere, some discovery of double counting of redundancies and with the use of voluntary redundancies, the numbers of potential compulsory redundancies have come down, perhaps to half this number or less. We are awaiting a full re-assessment of the current position on potential compulsory redundancies which is promised for the new year.
So we now ask the question - would it not be possible in an organisation with 16,500 staff to find alternative jobs for 500 or fewer people ? Can we not achieve 'no compulsory redundancies' next year ?
There are three strong weapons which can be used - another voluntary redundancy trawl, reduction of agency staff (still around £20 million plus this year) and reduced use of outside management consultants (still around £12 million this year).
Looking at the projected redundancies, there are several clusters of high levels of job losses. In Home Care 2-300 jobs are threatened. In Connexions 105 jobs are to go. In Childrens Services 140 jobs are to be cut. In the disabled work factory Shelforce, 87 would lose their jobs if Shelforce is closed. Some of these could be reduced by voluntary redundancies.
What's going on wioth these cuts? Why reduce well trained and high quality in-house Home Care when the standards of care in the private sector has just been lambasted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report ? Why savage Connexions with young people's unemployment at record rates ? Why threaten services for children in need in a city which has had a poor record of delivering a safe life for its children ? Why throw disabled people onto the dole and the mercy of the benefits system when the job market is in such a dire state ?
Surely we could put some more money into these critical services and also find alternative work in the council for those threatened with compulsory redundancy. Let's give people a little longer than the three months period on the 'Priority Movers' register to find another job in the council. Let's look closely at the skills of the potentially displaced and where they can be used elsewhere.
If the will was there, a council of the size and resourcefulness of Birmingham could do all these things and thereby give a guarantee of no compulsory redundancy even for just a year. The payback in terms of staff morale and higher committment would be immense.
But the will is not there. The council decision makers are obsessed with the bottom line of financial spreadsheets and don't pay enough attention to the misery of the real people who are being made compulsorily redundant.
So next year we must fight together for a more humane approach. It is perfectly possible to achieve. It just requires the will.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
Thursday, December 22, 2011
£570 Payment For Those Losing Allowances
Cllr Alan Rudge, Cabinet Member for HR & Equalities, announced yesterday a payment of £570 to those on Grades 1 - 4 losing more than £250 a year in shift, weekend pay and reduced night working allowance. Part timers will get the payment in proportion to their hours, so for example a person working half time (18.50 hours) will receive £285 if they have lost over £125 a year. The payment will be made in the January monthly payroll. We understand it will be subject to tax and national insurance, but is not pensionable.
We have been discussing this with corporate HR for a month or more. There was a report on this in the last branch newsletter mailed out to all branch members. There is also a news article on the branch web site too.
It is important to stress that this does not resolve the dispute and we have been asked to make no commitment to end our opposition to the new Martini contract. It gives some short term relief, perhaps a month or two's losses will be covered for some but by no means all.
As we said in the branch newsletter, the fact that management are able to find £1.3m for this and to prioritise that the money should go to those losing so much pay, just demonstrates that the pressure we are all putting them under is having some effect.
We have held lobbies, taken three days of strike action, taken the issue to councillors in their surgeries and in the constituency public meetings. We have been all over the local media opposing these cruel cuts in pay. UNISON has accompanied members to literally thousands of individual consultation meetings, dismissal hearings and appeal hearings. And we are not going to let the issue drop. Woe betide the Conservatives and Lib Dems in the local elections in May if they are still implementing what amounts to cuts in a third of pay for people earning only £15-19,000 a year.
Why is the payment only to grades 1 - 4 ? We believe it should go to everyone. Management however wanted to make sure that there is no equality bias in the payment and said that there might be if paid to all staff, regardless of grade. They were not prepared to take that risk.
We did manage to secure a little increase to the original offer, from £500 to £570 on the basis that the minimum loss was raised from £100 to £250. It was UNISON specifically which secured this. We recognise that those losing under £500 a year still need some compensation, because they will have this loss not just in one year but in every year from now on.
It might be hard on those losing between £100 and £250 a year, but we hope those members will understand that they are in a very different situation to someone who is facing a loss of say £2,000 this year and possibly up to £5000 from November 2012. There is a balance to be struck here. Ultimately it is management's decision not ours, but our approach was to try to get as much support to those with the greatest need.
What we really wanted to do was to have two or three levels of payment, a smaller one, a middle sized one and a larger one, depending on how much people are losing in total. But management would not support this. Again they said they were worried that there might be equalities differences introduced by this more complicated formula.
So what's next ? We do need to keep up the pressure on the politicians if we are to stop these cruel cuts. Have you been to see your councillors ? Would you be prepared to write to your councillors, and to send us a copy of your correspondence ? Would you help form a group of members in your constituency who would attend their surgeries or the constituency meetings and raise the issue there ? If so, contact the branch because we are continuing with all these actions.
Finally, I have to say this further mitigation step presents quite a challenge to the Labour Group on the council. They are almost definitely going to take power in 2012. The Con Dem coalition are entirely to blame for creating and imposing the Martini contract. But they can legitimately say they have taken some mitigation steps, limiting losses from the core allowances (but not other things like essential car user allowances) to 10% of take home pay for one year and now making a £570 one-off payment. And they have left a sting in the tail for Labour as the 10% mitigation ends in November 2012, with thousands facing further losses of another 10 or 20%.
What will Labour do ?
Next Christmas, will they be the Scrooges the ConDems want them to be ? Or will they try to be Father Christmas with one-off payments which barely last into the New Year. Or will they do the decent thing and restore our members pay ?
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
We have been discussing this with corporate HR for a month or more. There was a report on this in the last branch newsletter mailed out to all branch members. There is also a news article on the branch web site too.
It is important to stress that this does not resolve the dispute and we have been asked to make no commitment to end our opposition to the new Martini contract. It gives some short term relief, perhaps a month or two's losses will be covered for some but by no means all.
As we said in the branch newsletter, the fact that management are able to find £1.3m for this and to prioritise that the money should go to those losing so much pay, just demonstrates that the pressure we are all putting them under is having some effect.
We have held lobbies, taken three days of strike action, taken the issue to councillors in their surgeries and in the constituency public meetings. We have been all over the local media opposing these cruel cuts in pay. UNISON has accompanied members to literally thousands of individual consultation meetings, dismissal hearings and appeal hearings. And we are not going to let the issue drop. Woe betide the Conservatives and Lib Dems in the local elections in May if they are still implementing what amounts to cuts in a third of pay for people earning only £15-19,000 a year.
Why is the payment only to grades 1 - 4 ? We believe it should go to everyone. Management however wanted to make sure that there is no equality bias in the payment and said that there might be if paid to all staff, regardless of grade. They were not prepared to take that risk.
We did manage to secure a little increase to the original offer, from £500 to £570 on the basis that the minimum loss was raised from £100 to £250. It was UNISON specifically which secured this. We recognise that those losing under £500 a year still need some compensation, because they will have this loss not just in one year but in every year from now on.
It might be hard on those losing between £100 and £250 a year, but we hope those members will understand that they are in a very different situation to someone who is facing a loss of say £2,000 this year and possibly up to £5000 from November 2012. There is a balance to be struck here. Ultimately it is management's decision not ours, but our approach was to try to get as much support to those with the greatest need.
What we really wanted to do was to have two or three levels of payment, a smaller one, a middle sized one and a larger one, depending on how much people are losing in total. But management would not support this. Again they said they were worried that there might be equalities differences introduced by this more complicated formula.
So what's next ? We do need to keep up the pressure on the politicians if we are to stop these cruel cuts. Have you been to see your councillors ? Would you be prepared to write to your councillors, and to send us a copy of your correspondence ? Would you help form a group of members in your constituency who would attend their surgeries or the constituency meetings and raise the issue there ? If so, contact the branch because we are continuing with all these actions.
Finally, I have to say this further mitigation step presents quite a challenge to the Labour Group on the council. They are almost definitely going to take power in 2012. The Con Dem coalition are entirely to blame for creating and imposing the Martini contract. But they can legitimately say they have taken some mitigation steps, limiting losses from the core allowances (but not other things like essential car user allowances) to 10% of take home pay for one year and now making a £570 one-off payment. And they have left a sting in the tail for Labour as the 10% mitigation ends in November 2012, with thousands facing further losses of another 10 or 20%.
What will Labour do ?
Next Christmas, will they be the Scrooges the ConDems want them to be ? Or will they try to be Father Christmas with one-off payments which barely last into the New Year. Or will they do the decent thing and restore our members pay ?
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
Monday, December 19, 2011
Birmingham's New Organising Campaign
Today started with a meeting with our new Birmingham Branch Organising team, to review what was done last week and to plan what they will do this week.
We have been exceptionally fortunate to have received some short-term funding from the UNISON National Fighting Fund and other national and regional sources to set up a team of Local Organisers to pioneer the use of the 'organising approach' in a major local authority.
What we want to do is to build up strong local organised workplaces where members are working together to support each other in facing the challenges at work. We are also identifying people who can become stewards or workplace representatives, who will be well trained and supported by the branch to maintain the strong workplace organisation. We will thereby attract more staff to join the union and make us even more effective.
Recruitment without strong sustained local organisation is doomed to disillusionment and failure. Organisation needs recruitment, if our members are to have real influence with their management.
UNISON has been applying the 'organising approach' developed by public sector unions in American, Australia and elsewhere. The 'Three Companies' project had great success in building union organisation in three private catering and cleaning companies working on public sector contracts. Workplaces with hardly a few members turned into 70% plus membership and established effective organisation, winning real improvements in the conditions at work for or rather by members.
Now we want to see whether we can use these techniques in local government. Sheffield Branch is also running an organising project.
We will be focusing on three different areas - the schools in one parliamentary constituency, Yardley; the Adults Assessment and Support Planning division which faces privatisation in a social enterprise in 2013; and one of the big mega-administration buildings (Woodcock Street) where the council is concentrating thousands of staff. We will be looking at how we build a unionised community for the many staff who are working from home. There may be other focus areas later in the year, depending on progress with these three.
It's early days, but the team has been getting out to workplaces, meeting members and stewards, distributing newsletters and publicity.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
We have been exceptionally fortunate to have received some short-term funding from the UNISON National Fighting Fund and other national and regional sources to set up a team of Local Organisers to pioneer the use of the 'organising approach' in a major local authority.
What we want to do is to build up strong local organised workplaces where members are working together to support each other in facing the challenges at work. We are also identifying people who can become stewards or workplace representatives, who will be well trained and supported by the branch to maintain the strong workplace organisation. We will thereby attract more staff to join the union and make us even more effective.
Recruitment without strong sustained local organisation is doomed to disillusionment and failure. Organisation needs recruitment, if our members are to have real influence with their management.
UNISON has been applying the 'organising approach' developed by public sector unions in American, Australia and elsewhere. The 'Three Companies' project had great success in building union organisation in three private catering and cleaning companies working on public sector contracts. Workplaces with hardly a few members turned into 70% plus membership and established effective organisation, winning real improvements in the conditions at work for or rather by members.
Now we want to see whether we can use these techniques in local government. Sheffield Branch is also running an organising project.
We will be focusing on three different areas - the schools in one parliamentary constituency, Yardley; the Adults Assessment and Support Planning division which faces privatisation in a social enterprise in 2013; and one of the big mega-administration buildings (Woodcock Street) where the council is concentrating thousands of staff. We will be looking at how we build a unionised community for the many staff who are working from home. There may be other focus areas later in the year, depending on progress with these three.
It's early days, but the team has been getting out to workplaces, meeting members and stewards, distributing newsletters and publicity.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
Thursday, December 15, 2011
A Day On The Front-Line
Yesterday, I had my day all planned. Branch Officers Group in the morning and an afternoon at the fortnightly corporate trade union consultation meeting.
Then events intervened.
First there was a crisis at the Priory Rooms where management are holding dismissal appeal hearings for staff losing pay from the removal of allowances in the new 'Martini' contract. They have erected little booths in the meeting rooms at the Priory so that 8 - 10 dismisal appeal hearings can be held simultaneously. Most of the staff are UNISON members and they all need a UNISON representative. Up until recently we have been able to cope but the number pushed through by management have increased and we were short-handed.
So we cancelled Branch Officers Group and I went to help.
This is the third time our members have been through these one-to-one meetings, first a consultation on the new contract proposals, then a dismissal (and re-engagement) hearing and now an appeal against dismissal. The people we represent are in a heartbreaking situation. One person I represented was losing £3,800 out of around £16,000. She had children and a mortgage. Another is feeling forced to go for voluntary redundancy. He's lost the same, and another £80 per month because of loss of essential car use allowance.
It is always good just to be there for people. I hope we can make the process a bit more tolerable. And I hope our members know that we understand they are being treated like they just don't matter. Three times our members have gone through explaining just how devastating these pay cuts are. And three times, the council has just ploughed on regardless. Still we were there.
I could see just how deeply upset our UNISON reps are, who have been doing this day after day, sometimes for weeks at a time. I can only marvel at how dedicated they are and how caring they are. Without them, our members would have suffered so much more. But this takes a huge toll on our UNISON reps.
Then in the afternoon, I was covering for a colleague who has finally gone down with the bug she's been fighting off for weeks. I went to a staff briefing and UNISON members meeting for members working in the Older People's Access Service, which handles all calls and contacts for adult services, providing advice, assessment and support to meet care needs. Management is consulting on a decision already made to transfer them to be employed by Capita on 12 April 2012. There will also be a move of 8 or so miles from Perry Barr to the Capita call centre at Fort Dunlop.
Members are understandably worried about whether their council salaries, terms and conditions will be preserved by Capita. And what will happen to their pensions if the Government gets its way to end the 'Fair Deal' under which privatising firms like Capita have to have 'admitted status' to the LGPS. And what guarantees are there that Capita will not suddenly announce a re-location to some remote part of the country where new regionalised pay rates are lower.
These and many other issues will have to be examined in the next three months of consultation. But what really matters is that the OPAS workforce stands together, and bargains together, with the assistance of the union and the branch. The best route to a reasonably secure future is to have a high union membership, a number of active stewards, and members who clearly show they are working together and become a force that commands respect.
If I was moving into a private employer like Capita, I'd want to be in an organised workplace.
This is just a small snap shot of what our UNISON branch and section officers and convenors are doing every day. Every day is a day on the front line.
Then events intervened.
First there was a crisis at the Priory Rooms where management are holding dismissal appeal hearings for staff losing pay from the removal of allowances in the new 'Martini' contract. They have erected little booths in the meeting rooms at the Priory so that 8 - 10 dismisal appeal hearings can be held simultaneously. Most of the staff are UNISON members and they all need a UNISON representative. Up until recently we have been able to cope but the number pushed through by management have increased and we were short-handed.
So we cancelled Branch Officers Group and I went to help.
This is the third time our members have been through these one-to-one meetings, first a consultation on the new contract proposals, then a dismissal (and re-engagement) hearing and now an appeal against dismissal. The people we represent are in a heartbreaking situation. One person I represented was losing £3,800 out of around £16,000. She had children and a mortgage. Another is feeling forced to go for voluntary redundancy. He's lost the same, and another £80 per month because of loss of essential car use allowance.
It is always good just to be there for people. I hope we can make the process a bit more tolerable. And I hope our members know that we understand they are being treated like they just don't matter. Three times our members have gone through explaining just how devastating these pay cuts are. And three times, the council has just ploughed on regardless. Still we were there.
I could see just how deeply upset our UNISON reps are, who have been doing this day after day, sometimes for weeks at a time. I can only marvel at how dedicated they are and how caring they are. Without them, our members would have suffered so much more. But this takes a huge toll on our UNISON reps.
Then in the afternoon, I was covering for a colleague who has finally gone down with the bug she's been fighting off for weeks. I went to a staff briefing and UNISON members meeting for members working in the Older People's Access Service, which handles all calls and contacts for adult services, providing advice, assessment and support to meet care needs. Management is consulting on a decision already made to transfer them to be employed by Capita on 12 April 2012. There will also be a move of 8 or so miles from Perry Barr to the Capita call centre at Fort Dunlop.
Members are understandably worried about whether their council salaries, terms and conditions will be preserved by Capita. And what will happen to their pensions if the Government gets its way to end the 'Fair Deal' under which privatising firms like Capita have to have 'admitted status' to the LGPS. And what guarantees are there that Capita will not suddenly announce a re-location to some remote part of the country where new regionalised pay rates are lower.
These and many other issues will have to be examined in the next three months of consultation. But what really matters is that the OPAS workforce stands together, and bargains together, with the assistance of the union and the branch. The best route to a reasonably secure future is to have a high union membership, a number of active stewards, and members who clearly show they are working together and become a force that commands respect.
If I was moving into a private employer like Capita, I'd want to be in an organised workplace.
This is just a small snap shot of what our UNISON branch and section officers and convenors are doing every day. Every day is a day on the front line.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Hooray for Birmingham Against The Cuts
Last night we have our roughly fortnightly organising meeting of Birmingham Against The Cuts, the first since the Great Pensions Strike of 2011 !
We started with a discussion on Workfare - the compulsory work to get your benefits, which is forcing unemployed people to work without pay for an effective rate of £2.25 an hour. Some of our activists are planning a boycott and protest campaign in mid-Feb to mid March outside some of the retail outlets who are exploiting Workfare. Poundland is an example. The irony is that many of the exploited unemployed people would struggle to be able to buy a lot in the very shop which has exploited them.
And there is growing evidence that the public sector is eying up the opportunities presented by workfare. Newark council replacing an admin worker with a workfare person. 800 London Underground staff made redundant and 200 workfare people taken on. We'll be discussing the issue at our branch committee next week.
Red Pepper magazine has an excellent article on workfare in this month's edition, introduced with this harrowing quote.
'She found another placement for me at Primark. I worked from 10am to 4.30pm or 5pm with a half-hour break. They didn’t pay any money. It was nearly six months – January to June. When I finished the volunteer work I went to the manager: "Do you have any vacancies?" They said "We’ll call you when we do." I haven’t had a call.'
Karina, jobseeker placed at Primark under the Flexible New Deal
Then we moved on to the campaign against Academy Schools. Local campaign groups have had at least a partial victory in delaying the adoption of Academy status by Bournville School. Now three unions are taking strike action at Montgomery School. Again BATC is supporting the campaign.
The main discussion of the evening was over budget cuts in the council. BATC has performed brilliantly in opposing the cuts at the public consultation meetings held in each constituency. Several meetings have voted overwhelmingly for reversing the £212m cuts this year and re-instating the pay cuts under the Martini Contract. They also voted to reduce the pay of chief officers and cabinet members by the same proportion that they cut council services. More consultation meetings have been added and more BATC supporters are being mobilised.
Libraries in the city are a major focus for ourselves and BATC. The Central Library in Birmingham has this week reduced its opening hours by 25%, losing 3 hours a day. They say it is because staff need time to work on preparing to move to the new super library being built in Centenary Square. But the truth is that staffing levels have been reduced so low that basic services are being hit. Handsworth Library has reduced opening days. The local BATC group have collected 800 signatures on a petition against this. Balsall Heath Library also faces cuts in hours and a local BATC is campaigning against this.
We agreed to call a lobby of the next full council meeting on January 10th to highlight the library cuts.
Another major struggle supported by BATC is over the proposed closure of 5 Childrens Homes. Two of these are respite unites for disabled children, Charles House and Cambourne House. Charles House parents and families group has run a huge and effective campaign to save their home. The Chief Officer for Childrens Services and the Cabinet Member have had to face dozens of angry parents. Management say they have not decided yet which services will close but we now expect the announcement on January 10th, just days after the closure of the public consultation exercise. The Charles House group has been strongly supported by BATC's Stirchley and Cotteridge group - an amazing example of active local campaigning. The parents even asked for a collection for the local BATC group. There are tremendous reports on these meetings and activities on the BATC website.
We will be lobbing the council on 10th January to Save the Childrens' Homes too.
Then we discussed the closure of Shelforce, a council run factory/workshop for disabled workers. Our UNISON steward and the members there are organising the Save Shelforce campaign. BATC will be publicising their new ePetition.
Next we moved on to a couple of social events
Stirchley and Cotteridge Against The Cuts Thursday 15th December - with comedian, band, music
Birmingham Uncut Saturday 17 December.
Details on the BATC website
BATC is part of a network of anti-cuts groups in the Midlands. They meet regularly and are working on a regional conference on campaign organising skills in March 2012.
Finally, the date for the next meeting - Monday 9 January 6.30pm at the UNISON Birmingham Branch Office.
These meetings are open to anyone and if you want to become involved you would be very welcome. As you can see, UNISON is deeply involved with and strongly supported by anti-cuts campaigners throughout the city.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
We started with a discussion on Workfare - the compulsory work to get your benefits, which is forcing unemployed people to work without pay for an effective rate of £2.25 an hour. Some of our activists are planning a boycott and protest campaign in mid-Feb to mid March outside some of the retail outlets who are exploiting Workfare. Poundland is an example. The irony is that many of the exploited unemployed people would struggle to be able to buy a lot in the very shop which has exploited them.
And there is growing evidence that the public sector is eying up the opportunities presented by workfare. Newark council replacing an admin worker with a workfare person. 800 London Underground staff made redundant and 200 workfare people taken on. We'll be discussing the issue at our branch committee next week.
Red Pepper magazine has an excellent article on workfare in this month's edition, introduced with this harrowing quote.
Karina, jobseeker placed at Primark under the Flexible New Deal
Then we moved on to the campaign against Academy Schools. Local campaign groups have had at least a partial victory in delaying the adoption of Academy status by Bournville School. Now three unions are taking strike action at Montgomery School. Again BATC is supporting the campaign.
The main discussion of the evening was over budget cuts in the council. BATC has performed brilliantly in opposing the cuts at the public consultation meetings held in each constituency. Several meetings have voted overwhelmingly for reversing the £212m cuts this year and re-instating the pay cuts under the Martini Contract. They also voted to reduce the pay of chief officers and cabinet members by the same proportion that they cut council services. More consultation meetings have been added and more BATC supporters are being mobilised.
Libraries in the city are a major focus for ourselves and BATC. The Central Library in Birmingham has this week reduced its opening hours by 25%, losing 3 hours a day. They say it is because staff need time to work on preparing to move to the new super library being built in Centenary Square. But the truth is that staffing levels have been reduced so low that basic services are being hit. Handsworth Library has reduced opening days. The local BATC group have collected 800 signatures on a petition against this. Balsall Heath Library also faces cuts in hours and a local BATC is campaigning against this.
We agreed to call a lobby of the next full council meeting on January 10th to highlight the library cuts.
Another major struggle supported by BATC is over the proposed closure of 5 Childrens Homes. Two of these are respite unites for disabled children, Charles House and Cambourne House. Charles House parents and families group has run a huge and effective campaign to save their home. The Chief Officer for Childrens Services and the Cabinet Member have had to face dozens of angry parents. Management say they have not decided yet which services will close but we now expect the announcement on January 10th, just days after the closure of the public consultation exercise. The Charles House group has been strongly supported by BATC's Stirchley and Cotteridge group - an amazing example of active local campaigning. The parents even asked for a collection for the local BATC group. There are tremendous reports on these meetings and activities on the BATC website.
We will be lobbing the council on 10th January to Save the Childrens' Homes too.
Then we discussed the closure of Shelforce, a council run factory/workshop for disabled workers. Our UNISON steward and the members there are organising the Save Shelforce campaign. BATC will be publicising their new ePetition.
Next we moved on to a couple of social events
Stirchley and Cotteridge Against The Cuts Thursday 15th December - with comedian, band, music
Birmingham Uncut Saturday 17 December.
Details on the BATC website
BATC is part of a network of anti-cuts groups in the Midlands. They meet regularly and are working on a regional conference on campaign organising skills in March 2012.
Finally, the date for the next meeting - Monday 9 January 6.30pm at the UNISON Birmingham Branch Office.
These meetings are open to anyone and if you want to become involved you would be very welcome. As you can see, UNISON is deeply involved with and strongly supported by anti-cuts campaigners throughout the city.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
Monday, December 12, 2011
Collective Grievances About Unpaid Weekend And Shift Allowances
Most of this afternoon I have been working on getting ready for a collective grievance on behalf of senior staff working in adult residential homes who have not been paid weekend and shift allowances since 2008.
In 2008, the city council's new Single Status contract included additional allowances for all staff who work weekends and alternating shift systems. But some groups of staff have never received these enhancements. Managers, assistant managers, team leaders and other staff in the older adults residential homes are a case in point. They have routinely worked shifts starting at 7.00 in the morning and ending at 10.00 at night, seven days a week. They are owed thousands of pounds because the council has refused to pay the contracted allowances.
A group of over 20 of these staff have been pursuing a collective grievance, with representation from UNISON, for the last couple of years. We've got as far as having our grievance upheld at Stage 2 but the council is still refusing to pay. They say because of the current economic climate "the department is not in a position to pay you the outstanding monies owed". I have tried making the same argument to British Gas about my energy bills but to no effect !
So now we are preparing a Statement of Case for Stage 3 of the grievance procedure, a hearing in front of three councillors. This will be fascinating to see what they make of the situation. We do believe that the council is preparing to make an offer of settlement to the different groups of staff who are owed money for these unpaid allowances. But it may take some time for this to be put into effect.
In the meantime, the city council have imposed another new contract which removes these allowances as from 1 November 2011. That means that staff have three months minus a day in which to lodge an employment tribunal case for breach of the 2008 contract. We are preparing to lodge these legal cases for the members concerned. But we need a completed Case Referral Form for all the affected members individually. We have a rapidly growing pile of these completed forms and we are encouraging anyone else who believes they are due unpaid allowances to send us a form.
So today I have been writing the Statement of Case, sifting through evidence we need to submit with it, answering emails from the members, sending out a bulk email to all the members in the collective grievance about what we are doing, sorting through the referral forms to see they have all the information we need and contacting individuals to fill out the gaps.
We are doing the same thing for other groups of staff in the same circumstances. One huge group is the workers in Childrens Homes. We believe hundreds of them are owed allowances dating back to March 2008. There's an even bigger collective grievance for them that my Assistant Branch Secretary is working on.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
In 2008, the city council's new Single Status contract included additional allowances for all staff who work weekends and alternating shift systems. But some groups of staff have never received these enhancements. Managers, assistant managers, team leaders and other staff in the older adults residential homes are a case in point. They have routinely worked shifts starting at 7.00 in the morning and ending at 10.00 at night, seven days a week. They are owed thousands of pounds because the council has refused to pay the contracted allowances.
A group of over 20 of these staff have been pursuing a collective grievance, with representation from UNISON, for the last couple of years. We've got as far as having our grievance upheld at Stage 2 but the council is still refusing to pay. They say because of the current economic climate "the department is not in a position to pay you the outstanding monies owed". I have tried making the same argument to British Gas about my energy bills but to no effect !
So now we are preparing a Statement of Case for Stage 3 of the grievance procedure, a hearing in front of three councillors. This will be fascinating to see what they make of the situation. We do believe that the council is preparing to make an offer of settlement to the different groups of staff who are owed money for these unpaid allowances. But it may take some time for this to be put into effect.
In the meantime, the city council have imposed another new contract which removes these allowances as from 1 November 2011. That means that staff have three months minus a day in which to lodge an employment tribunal case for breach of the 2008 contract. We are preparing to lodge these legal cases for the members concerned. But we need a completed Case Referral Form for all the affected members individually. We have a rapidly growing pile of these completed forms and we are encouraging anyone else who believes they are due unpaid allowances to send us a form.
So today I have been writing the Statement of Case, sifting through evidence we need to submit with it, answering emails from the members, sending out a bulk email to all the members in the collective grievance about what we are doing, sorting through the referral forms to see they have all the information we need and contacting individuals to fill out the gaps.
We are doing the same thing for other groups of staff in the same circumstances. One huge group is the workers in Childrens Homes. We believe hundreds of them are owed allowances dating back to March 2008. There's an even bigger collective grievance for them that my Assistant Branch Secretary is working on.
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Connecting Together The Birmingham Public Sector Unions
One of the most impressive aspects of November 30 in Birmingham was the sheer range of public sector trade unions who were taking part in the Pensions Strike.
As I walked across Birmingham city centre after my tour of outer-city pickets, it seemed that every 50 or so yards I came across another picket line - Hospital workers outside the Childrens' Hospital, PCS members on Bull Street, the First Division Association on Colmore Circus, our UNISON members outside Louisa Ryland House and so on.
Then the demonstration and the NIA was packed with teachers, health workers, civil servants, college workers, probation staff and council workers. In all my years (and to be frank decades !) of trade union involvement, I don't think I have ever experienced anything remotely like November 30th for the sheer scale and range of participation from all over the public services. It was inspiring and empowering.
We really need to keep our links strong with all the other public sector unions in Birmingham.
We have had close working relationships with Unite, GMB and UCATT for many years in the council. And we take a regular part in our UNISON West Midlands Regional Council where we keep in touch with our health, energy, police staff, universities and other UNISON branches. But our contacts with the teaching unions, the civil service, UCU the college union, FBU the fire brigades union, CWU the post office union and many other public sector unions have been limited over the years.
But recently we have been successful in making the person-to-person contacts at local branch level which are so vital in building strong, productive alliances. It started with the Pensions disputes in 2006 and 2007. Then when we helped establish Birmingham Against The Cuts in 2010 we found ourselves campaigning again alongside teachers, civil servants, college workers - you name it they were there ! June 30th was a big step forward when we took our first day's strike against the Martini Contract and had a joint rally in Victoria Square with thousands of members of NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL and other unions striking over pensions, pay cuts and against redundancies.
So in the run up to November 30th, we met regularly with activists at branch and regional level of all the public sector unions in the city. We produced joint leaflets and posters, coordinated the four street protests on the day and held a joint media conference in the branch office on the day before the strike with lay activists from NUT, PCS, GMB and UNISON. We even managed to get film of this media conference on national news and 'Have I Got News For You' !
Now we are even more determined to keep the momentum up. So on Wednesday of last week at the end of a long day, we met again, branch and regional activists, with local stewards from a number of schools, colleges, and benefit offices. From such small but vital meetings, big developments can arise.
What are we going to do next ?
As I walked across Birmingham city centre after my tour of outer-city pickets, it seemed that every 50 or so yards I came across another picket line - Hospital workers outside the Childrens' Hospital, PCS members on Bull Street, the First Division Association on Colmore Circus, our UNISON members outside Louisa Ryland House and so on.
Then the demonstration and the NIA was packed with teachers, health workers, civil servants, college workers, probation staff and council workers. In all my years (and to be frank decades !) of trade union involvement, I don't think I have ever experienced anything remotely like November 30th for the sheer scale and range of participation from all over the public services. It was inspiring and empowering.
We really need to keep our links strong with all the other public sector unions in Birmingham.
We have had close working relationships with Unite, GMB and UCATT for many years in the council. And we take a regular part in our UNISON West Midlands Regional Council where we keep in touch with our health, energy, police staff, universities and other UNISON branches. But our contacts with the teaching unions, the civil service, UCU the college union, FBU the fire brigades union, CWU the post office union and many other public sector unions have been limited over the years.
But recently we have been successful in making the person-to-person contacts at local branch level which are so vital in building strong, productive alliances. It started with the Pensions disputes in 2006 and 2007. Then when we helped establish Birmingham Against The Cuts in 2010 we found ourselves campaigning again alongside teachers, civil servants, college workers - you name it they were there ! June 30th was a big step forward when we took our first day's strike against the Martini Contract and had a joint rally in Victoria Square with thousands of members of NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL and other unions striking over pensions, pay cuts and against redundancies.
So in the run up to November 30th, we met regularly with activists at branch and regional level of all the public sector unions in the city. We produced joint leaflets and posters, coordinated the four street protests on the day and held a joint media conference in the branch office on the day before the strike with lay activists from NUT, PCS, GMB and UNISON. We even managed to get film of this media conference on national news and 'Have I Got News For You' !
Now we are even more determined to keep the momentum up. So on Wednesday of last week at the end of a long day, we met again, branch and regional activists, with local stewards from a number of schools, colleges, and benefit offices. From such small but vital meetings, big developments can arise.
What are we going to do next ?
- produce a joint union newsletter for general release in the New Year with messages of support from all the local union branches we can involve.
- look into organising in late January a Saturday morning open meeting for all our stewards, officers and members, with hopefully some big national union speakers.
- publicise in our own branches the activities and campaigns which different unions are running - from reducing the overload of teachers workload, to the saving of our Connexions services.
- meet again in early January to keep the contact going.
I believe all our members taking part on November 30th got at least a glimpse of the power of united public sector unions. Now we need to make that glimpse into a sustainable vision for the future of joint work across the public sector union branches in Birmingham. Standing together we can defend public services.
Graeme Horn, Joint Branch Secretary
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Low Paid staff lose thousands - but the Chief Officers sacrifice nothing !
Yesterday we had a marathon 3 hour consultation session with Birmingham Chief Executive, Stephen Hughes, and finance Cabinet Member Cllr Randall Brew on the proposed £106 million cuts for next year.
We don't see Stephen Hughes that often, so it was an opportunity to put to him directly the question which so many of our members have been asking - Are we really all in this together ?
Last week thousands of our members received their first monthly pay slips under the new Birmingham Council contract and thousands have lost up to 10% of their pay through the abolition of weekend and shift allowances, as well as other cuts in pay. Many thousands could see that they have protected pay for another 10 or 20% of their pay. Protection which will last until November 2012, when the full pay cuts will be carried out.
These are low paid cooks, carers, home carers, cleaners, library workers, security staff, leisure centre workers, parks staff and many others who only usually earn 13-18,000 a year - hardly enough to live on as it is. And they are losing as much as £4-5,000 a year, up to 10% of pay this year, and the full loss in November 2012.
Chief Officers and the Chief Executive himself are not having any cuts to their pay. Their contract does not have weekend or shift allowances anyway. But at their salaries, they don't need pay enhancements for working unsocial hours. Stephen Hughes is estimated at receiving around £233,000 a year. 47 Birmingham Council Chief Officers were reported two years ago as being paid £4.6 million between them.
It really sticks in the throat of our members that the very people who are making the decision to savage their pay are not taking any of the pain themselves. Frankly we don't want anyone to lose pay. But how many times have we heard the politicians say that the cuts are being borne by those with the widest shoulders. Not in Birmingham they're not.
So we put the first question to Stephen Hughes - "In view of the massive pay cuts you are inflicting on so many of our mainly low paid members, are you and the chief officers and the Cabinet members prepared to take a pay cut yourself to share the pain". We said that this would help restore some sense of moral leadership for themselves as chief officers.
And the reply ? No ! Hughes said that with respect to chief officers, he needed them to be able to manage the council in this most difficult situation the council faced. He would argue against any pay cuts. He later pointed out, after further pushing by UNISON on this point, that he had taken a pay cut through the 50% tax band (over £150,000) and increases in his pension contributions.
Cllr Randall Brew handled the question more diplomatically. He said he would take the proposal to the Cabinet for a discussion. He did not state his own view on it.
We drew attention to the Conservative Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Eric Pickles' request to all councils in October 2010 that they consider a 5% pay reduction for all those earning over £100,000 and 10% for those over £200,000. That didn't have much of an effect on them.
That's just in miniature what is happening all over the country and the world for that matter. Those with power and wealth are protecting themselves, and even increasing their wealth and power. Whilst the poorest bear the full cost of a financial crisis they did not create. The rich get rich and the poor get pay cuts.
But we will continue to challenge this at every opportunity. Don't just get angry - get organised.
We don't see Stephen Hughes that often, so it was an opportunity to put to him directly the question which so many of our members have been asking - Are we really all in this together ?
Last week thousands of our members received their first monthly pay slips under the new Birmingham Council contract and thousands have lost up to 10% of their pay through the abolition of weekend and shift allowances, as well as other cuts in pay. Many thousands could see that they have protected pay for another 10 or 20% of their pay. Protection which will last until November 2012, when the full pay cuts will be carried out.
These are low paid cooks, carers, home carers, cleaners, library workers, security staff, leisure centre workers, parks staff and many others who only usually earn 13-18,000 a year - hardly enough to live on as it is. And they are losing as much as £4-5,000 a year, up to 10% of pay this year, and the full loss in November 2012.
Chief Officers and the Chief Executive himself are not having any cuts to their pay. Their contract does not have weekend or shift allowances anyway. But at their salaries, they don't need pay enhancements for working unsocial hours. Stephen Hughes is estimated at receiving around £233,000 a year. 47 Birmingham Council Chief Officers were reported two years ago as being paid £4.6 million between them.
It really sticks in the throat of our members that the very people who are making the decision to savage their pay are not taking any of the pain themselves. Frankly we don't want anyone to lose pay. But how many times have we heard the politicians say that the cuts are being borne by those with the widest shoulders. Not in Birmingham they're not.
So we put the first question to Stephen Hughes - "In view of the massive pay cuts you are inflicting on so many of our mainly low paid members, are you and the chief officers and the Cabinet members prepared to take a pay cut yourself to share the pain". We said that this would help restore some sense of moral leadership for themselves as chief officers.
And the reply ? No ! Hughes said that with respect to chief officers, he needed them to be able to manage the council in this most difficult situation the council faced. He would argue against any pay cuts. He later pointed out, after further pushing by UNISON on this point, that he had taken a pay cut through the 50% tax band (over £150,000) and increases in his pension contributions.
Cllr Randall Brew handled the question more diplomatically. He said he would take the proposal to the Cabinet for a discussion. He did not state his own view on it.
We drew attention to the Conservative Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Eric Pickles' request to all councils in October 2010 that they consider a 5% pay reduction for all those earning over £100,000 and 10% for those over £200,000. That didn't have much of an effect on them.
That's just in miniature what is happening all over the country and the world for that matter. Those with power and wealth are protecting themselves, and even increasing their wealth and power. Whilst the poorest bear the full cost of a financial crisis they did not create. The rich get rich and the poor get pay cuts.
But we will continue to challenge this at every opportunity. Don't just get angry - get organised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)