All Staff, Non-Members Welcome!

Published on Thursday 15 September 2011, please read the following inspired article by Paul O’Brien:

A huge debate is taking place at present about which are the best models available to divest public services through. I have got to say I remain to be convinced. Whatever service options local authorities decide to pursue in future the benchmark against which to appraise the options is the existing in-house service. Does any alternative form of provision meet or surpass the benefits that managing services directly yourself brings.

These benefits are:

Firstly, high quality, value for money, service provision.

Secondly, the retention of public resources within the local economy and the avoidance of leakage from the local area. This point was covered extensively in our Economic Footprint research in Swindon that showed for every £1 spent by the council on services £1.64 circulated in the local economy.

Thirdly, the ability to act as a market regulator to ensure the Council achieves a fair price over the long term.

Fourthly, being an employment standard setter in promoting fair employment practice, skills training and apprenticeships.

Fifthly, joining up wider public policy and council corporate objectives by integrating this into and across service delivery, an example of this being responding to climate change.

Sixthly, the contribution made to financing and supporting the democratic and corporate core of the council.

Seventhly, the flexibility to change priorities and reduce budgets without having to revert to a contract.

Eighthly, being responsive in a crisis such as the recent riots, the vast majority of councils street cleansing teams had already returned the streets to normal by the time the public had arrived the following morning.

Ninthly and finally, being democratically accountable to elected members and being focused on the community because the workforce from top to bottom are predominately from the community.

In my view this list is non-exhaustive but is an important contribution to the debate on future service delivery models and is one that cannot be ignored. A number of elected members have remarked to me in the past that you often don’t realise the value of what you had, until it’s gone.

http://www.apse.org.uk/blog/post/2011/09/15/Alternative-models-of-service-delivery-a-price-worth-paying.aspx

Click below to download the following documents sent to members by email:

1. Formal notice convening the Branch AGM (and nomination form to be returned no later than 25 January)
2. A pro-forma motion to be returned no later than 22 February

If you have not received this email, please contact the Membership Secretary to check that we have your email address.

We will circulate the full agenda closer to the time.  The AGM is an important opportunity to ensure the Branch is organised and administered effectively, to keep members informed of the work we are doing and to give you a voice in running the Branch.

With regard to proportionality, we especially welcome nominations from women who make up roughly half the workforce at the University and half the membership of the Branch but are underrepresented on the executive committee.

Human Resources has circulated the following to Heads of Department:

“Deans and Heads are asked to permit any UNISON members who wish to attend this meeting to do so, as long as this does not have a significant adverse impact on service provision, and to take into consideration reasonable travelling time for any members who need to travel to the Aldgate or Moorgate [TBC] sites in order to attend. Any staff who are given permission to attend the AGM should not then be required to make up that time.”

We look forward to seeing you on 7 March.

A hundred UNISON members met this week at branch meetings held on Monday 16th and Thursday 19th, to launch a campaign for ‘Education not Privatization’! Members debated five items, passed three motions and nominated three candidates for election to the HE SGE:

1) Education, not privatisation! We are London Met not Easy-Met!
Our motion against privatisation of London Met support services is attached, passed unanimously.Education, not privatisation – We are London Met not Easy-Met motion

2) Pensions: Re-open the debate – hold a special conference

This Branch requisitions a Special Conference of the Higher Education Service Group to consider the policy of the Service Group in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

We anticipate a large number of other branches to do the same. If branches covering 25% of membership do so, then the rulebook stipulates there will be a special conference on this matter to agree our final position.

3) HERA
See attached some serious concerns on the way HERA is being rushed through at London Met. Our bottom line is now: Concerns with HERA Thursd 19th Jan 2012

“Please respond to these concerns ASAP. Our continued cooperation in the HERA process is dependant on them being adequately addressed.”

We will inform you of the outcome / response from HR. If not satisfactory, we shall be informing the ECC of the misuse of their product.

4) Redundancies:
We await further information on the so-called S188 and until we have an actual proposal for redundancies, with a thorough rationale for them, we do not consider the 90 day consultation to have begun.

Max Watson, who chairs trade union Unison’s London Met branch, said: “Any goodwill towards the new management who came in two years ago has virtually disappeared.” Strike action would be on the cards if management threatened compulsory redundancies, he warned.

See here: http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2012/jan/more-jobs-face-axe-london-metropolitan-university

And see another article in THE here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=418744#.TxgPCu2p-2Y

5) ELECTIONS
We also nominated three candidates for the HE SGE elections:

• Sandy Nicholl, SOAS Branch (General seat) 20120110 SGE Nomination Request Sandy Nicholl
• Molly Cooper UCL Branch (Female Seat) 20120110 Molly’s SGE Nomination Request
• Emilse Ocampo Medina, Birkbeck Branch (Reserved Seat) 20120110 Emilse SGE Nomination Request

Their letters to are all available for download above.

TUPE -  ‘Tear Up Previous Expectations’

Don’t be fooled on TUPE. We made our feelings known at the open forums to the VC, at which several members expressed their deep concerns at the so called ‘Shared Services’ model proposals. There were several questions raised by members, often involving TUPE. We include some helpful information below. To start with, a quote from last year’s UNISON HE Conference:

Tony Mabbott, from the University of London, warned of how outsourcing was being used to attack terms and conditions.

For a lot of members, he said, TUPE did not stand for ‘transfer of the undertakings (protection of employment, but for ‘tear up previous expectations’.

http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=6587

See some good advice from UNISON here:

http://www.unison.org.uk/bargaining/tupeupdate.asp

More here: http://www.unison.org.uk/bargaining/docs_list.asp

ACAS Advice is here:
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655

The letter of the law and the reality on the ground are two different things though. Firstly, the government want to weaken TUPE law, see here for the actual law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/contents/made

Government’s advice here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/BusinessTransfersandtakeovers/DG_10026691

And here for the government’s plans to tear up what already exists:

Unions attack plans to reform employment laws

Ministers claim reforms will make it easier for businesses to grow but unions say change will ‘reward bad employers who disadvantage women and ethnic minority workers’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/11/unions-attack-plans-to-reform-employment-laws

See also:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/workers-rights-union-anger-as-job-security-comes-under-threat-6269746.html

And see more info, connecting the pensions issue with privatisation, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/05/public-sector-pensions-shakeup-privatisation-plot

And besides, for some helpful hints for HR Directors like our Lyn Link or Paul Bowler et al to get around the problem of TUPE’d staff, see this:

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2011/06/07/57690/weekly-dilemma-changing-terms-after-a-tupe-transfer.html

The reality of TUPE is … well, just ask the caterers, the cleaners, the maintenance workers who were all outsourced over the years at London Met (sometimes more than once). Ask if they were TUPE’d from a London Met contact – see how few of them are left. Ask if they’re still in the LGPS, if they get sick pay or how many holidays. Find out the difference in the wages, their terms and conditions and you’ll get a taste of the future of the ’shared services’ model envisioned by our current VC.

The majority of TUPE’d staff leave before two years. They are surrounded by workers on worse conditions, with a two tier workforce that breeds resentment whilst their colleagues work to much worse contracts . Harry Lister used the example of Kingston Uni, who transferred staff to their own subsidiary company years ago. Of the 180-odd staff left, only around ten are left on the same contract now.

Who is David Andrews, of ‘Andrews International’?
There are also concerns about the advisers that Paul Bowler and Malcolm Gilles have been meeting with. David Andrews set up a consultancy which was floated in 2007. But he left suddenly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/8312991/Xchanging-what-the-analysts-say.html

In-House bid
Many more questions arise – which we are going to publish here too. However, we have moved on to the bidding stage now. We are engaging with our own consultants, who will advise us on putting together an in-house bid. How would that work? Watch this space and please play your role – as per the motion as carried (unanimously) – we’ll be needing your support.

Does UNISON Support our position?
At the open forum meeting in Goulston St, Paul Bowler claimed that our branch’s position position on Shared Services was ‘extreme’ compared to the position of UNISON nationally. Firstly, it is our members who work at London Met who lead this branch and agree our policy. And secondly, our officials and elected reps of our union do fully support us in this campaign.

• Sandy Nicholl, our elected rep on the HE SGE spoke passionately at our meeting and promised unequivocal support for our campaign on Monday.
• Harry Lister, our regional Full time official also spoke convincingly about his experience with TUPE and shared services, and supported our case at Thursdays’ meeting.

* Denise Bertuchi, the National Officer for UNISON Education Service Group, who very helpfully advised and provided us with plenty of background information on Shared Services before we responded in the Times Higher Education, has just yesterday circulated that letter to the branch secretaries of the entire Higher Education Service Group for UNISON. Our union is fully behind us.

In case you missed the original article:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=418594

Our response was published a week later and is online here:
http://www.londonmetunison.org.uk/2012/01/not-easymet/

Max Watson, Branch Chair, said:

Another tumultuous year at London Met is on the cards. Thankfully, our branch is well prepared for such challenges. Never forget – we have defeated attempts to outsource IT and Media before – we can do it again!

Please get involved, contact you local reps, and ask not what your union can do you for, but what you can do for your union, because you ARE the union! If you are reading this and not a member yet – go here to join UNISON – together we are stronger!

North Campus:

Monday 16 January 1.00-2.00pm Stapleton House, SHG-04

City Campus:

Thursday 19 January 1.00-2.00pm Calcutta House, CM2-18

Agenda:

• Threat of ‘shared services’ – What is it? How to we stop it?
• HERA: Higher Education Role Analysis
• Pensions
• New Section 188 Redundancies

We defeated the plans to outsource IT and Media in 2009 because members mobilised themselves into action. We won then, we can win again.

Please come to a meeting to find out what you can do to help. This concerns everyone so invite concerned non-members too (membership forms will be available)

These just a few cases that UNISON recently won in 2011. Allan Pike, who as branch Secretary advises on most cases (but who used to do nearly all of this work virtually alone), said:

“I’m extremely pleased that others on the Branch Committee are gaining experience and are becoming more involved in casework and or attending meetings with Senior management. I hope to extend this practice of ‘shadowing’ and ‘observing’ for others on the Committee as more cases come forward or negotiating meetings arise.”

Case 1)
Branch committee members involved in this case, Maggie Loughran, Max Watson and to a minor degree Allan Pike:

External Contract Member of staff was suspended without pay by their employer and faced risk of dismissal. Representation was made and objections were raised by UNISON direct to the employer and with London Met. This resulted in their employer withdrawing the suspension and re-engaging the member back into employment. RESULT!

An internal enquiry by London Met has now been set up, as a result of concerns made by us relating to why and how the member was ever suspended in the first place. The member said:

“Thank you so much, I’m sure without your help and involvement I would have been dismissed.”

Case 2)
Branch Committee member involved in the case Eddie Rowley with minor assistance from Allan Pike

Appeal and review of a members who was rejected applying for VR following an assimilation. Evidence and a case was presented that showed both processes were unfair, both decisions on appeal were accepted by the employer. The member has now received their desired outcome to be released under the terms of VR5.

Quote from member: “I stopped believing in Father Christmas many years ago!!! Thanks again for what you have done for me and hope you have a great Christmas and new year.”

Case 3)
Branch Committee member involved in this case – Allan Pike

Member of staff experienced continued blocking and objections from senior management to the member’s request to be granted paid time off to attend an external training course. Representation made on member’s behalf and agreement reached to allowed the member to attend the course with minimal usage of having to attend the course outside the member’s normal working hours.

Quote from member:

“I cannot thank you enough for everything you’ve done for me regarding this course.”

Case 4)
Branch Committee members involved; Allan Pike and Eddie Rowley

Casual fixed term contract LMU employee and members seeking assurances within their reviewed Department, requesting to be offered direct assimilation and assurances of a permanent contract at the end of the review process. UNISON assistance and involvement resulted in that assurance being provided. Members comment:

“Never thought I would get this commitment, came close to resigning on a few occasions, but thanks to UNISON I now feel much more positive about my future.”

Case 5)
Branch Committee members involved, Allan Pike & Max Watson

Member on a fixed term contract and subject to an externally funded post – the post holder was at risk of a severe reduction in hours at very short notice and just before the Christmas closure period. Representation was made and issues raised regarding failure to consult and grounds put forward that the process was unfair, which resulted in an interim measure of retaining that member on a full time contract for a significantly extended period of time.

Members comment:

“Thank you so much, being just before Christmas that I was to face a severe reduction in hours was extremely upsetting and ill timed, but really grateful for UNISON’s interventions, which meant that I was now able to enjoy my Christmas and not have any immediate worries hanging over me.”

Remember – together, we are stronger! Get involved! Join UNISON!
http://www.londonmetunison.org.uk/join/

Marketing implores us to be “Proud to be London Met” – but now our vice-chancellor says that up to 50 per cent of our support services staff are “Not allowed to be London Met”.

We were staggered by the latest email to staff sent by Malcolm Gillies, who announced (just two days before the Christmas holidays) that London Metropolitan University’s board of governors had decided to embark on a “shared services” project – slashing costs and cutting jobs in the process.

Gillies followed up this Scrooge-like Christmas message with an interview with Times Higher Education in which he claimed that the shared services model would cut costs by up to 50 per cent over five years (“Shared savings plan to halve admin costs”, 5 January). This was the first Unison (which represents support staff) had heard of the plans: happy new year to you too, Malcolm.

Current evidence that doesn’t come from the shared services industry itself overwhelmingly demonstrates that such projects are deeply flawed. They share these characteristics: high entry or upfront costs; high failure rates; loss of local knowledge; loss of service visibility; loss of control and accountability; loss of identity; loss of competitive advantage; worker dissatisfaction and union trouble (as if we haven’t had enough of that at London Met); costs of failure pushed on to service users (London Met students are not rich); and “savings” as costs are pushed into other parts of the system.

We are deeply concerned that London Met is on the road to privatisation. The procurement costs of shared service models are significant and could leave the university deeper in the red: the potential savings are wildly exaggerated and dependent on cutting terms and conditions, or locating employment in areas where costs are lower – yet the marketers want us to “talk up the brand”.

London Met staff really do pride ourselves on being embedded in the local community. We are London Met, not “EasyMet”, and intend to remain so. Let’s hope the board won’t repeat the failures of the past.

Max Watson, Chair, London Metropolitan University Unison branch

Read article and comments in The Times Higher Education here

“These agreements deliver the government’s key objectives in full, and do so with no new money since our November offer. These reforms will save the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds over the next few decades and significantly improve the long-term fiscal sustainability of this country.” Danny Alexander