FAO: Governors of London Met Uni

25th January 2012

Dear Governor,

RE           Shared Services

I am writing to you on behalf of UNISON, representing support staff at London Met, whose members were shocked by the latest announcement regarding your apparent decision to embark on a shared services project. Firstly, we are at a loss as to why this announcement was made just days before Christmas last year and why not one conversation, let alone a meeting or a correspondence, was afforded to the union that represents the very staff who will be affected by this. We were last week informed we will no longer be employed by London Met as a result of this project.

Secondly, we were flabbergasted to read in the Times Higher Ed that this would – of course – lead to more staff cuts. It is simply unacceptable to us to have job losses announced in this way. Thirdly, we had the displeasure of being informed the decision to go ahead with this very drastic move has already been taken by yourselves and it was too late to influence this decision. This was apparently without a thorough risk assessment of the start-up costs, the high failure rate of other shared service projects, the loss of local control, of local knowledge and skills, the loss of identity (no more ‘Proud to be London Met’ for us). And what about the other common feature of shared services – industrial unrest? Is that what the Governors signed up for? Have the Governors really studied the risks? We can’t know because we have not seen any papers relating to this project, despite requests.

We question whether the Governors are aware of the huge drop in morale this latest decision has caused amongst support staff. Staff at both Open Forums last week overwhelmingly spoke against the Shares Services Model – not a single staff member spoke in support –serious questions were raised but few reassuring answers given. In addition to the staff open forums, over a hundred UNISON members met last week and voted unanimously to oppose the shared services project, up to and including taking strike action if necessary. Damaging and protracted strike action at London Met is once again on the cards, thanks to this latest bombshell announcement.

You must know that staff currently feel vulnerable, let down and confused. One UNISON member described the consternation felt towards the VC:

“Your article in the recent newsletter describes the proposals as ‘an exciting opportunity for LondonMet’. I do not share your perception of this radical change and neither do any colleagues I have spoken to in Library Services. To be frank, we are shocked and dismayed.”

We request you step back from the brink and think carefully – is this really a risk worth taking at this current unstable time for London Met? We implore you to listen to the staff themselves: to that end, we request a meeting with the Chair of the Board of Governors to discuss our urgent concerns at the earliest opportunity whilst these proposals are put on hold.

Regards,

Max Watson        Allan Pike,

Chair                      Secretary, on behalf of the UNISON Branch Committee
unison@londonmet.ac.uk / www.londonmetunison.org.uk / 020 7320 3010

All Staff, Non-Members Welcome!

ALL STAFF

A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE CURRENT S188 REDUNDANCIES IN RELATION TO the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities (FSSH)

For all the details click here

Here is a good UNISON case study (note APSE involvement and our friends TRIBAL).

See the full report here for more: http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/19226.pdf

Lincolnshire East Coast Authorities: Boston Borough Council; East Lindsey District Council and South Holland District Council. (Savings exaggerated; claims about potential benefits fail when exposed to critical examination)
Introduction
In January 2009, three district councils – South Holland, East Lindsey and Boston –
were looking into merging their front-line support services (IT, HR, revenues and
benefits , customer services, finance) to save money. The South Holland UNISON
branch was small (200 members), and its officers mainly newly elected.
It’s a done deal
The proposal took off when the East Midlands ‘RIEP’ (Regional Improvement and
Efficiency Partnership) agreed to fund a report by consultants ‘Tribal’. There was no
union involvement, or even awareness that this was taking place.
The £206,000, 172 page report was completed in June 2009. It claimed privatising the
services could save £26m over ten years, and would have greater resilience and
flexibility. Alternatively, an in-house service improvement plan would save £19.3m but
existing staff didn’t have the skills to implement it. Publication of the report was
continuously delayed, and it took UNISON four weeks to even see a copy.
The councils held a consultation over a very short timescale, with a number of meetings
at two weeks notice over the summer holidays. Unions were not invited, and many staff
could not be released to attend, but pro-outsourcing managers did. The team tasked
with consulting with staff only provided limited information.

Staff morale was low, and most staff thought it was a done deal. The talk was of Capita
and Mouchelle already vying for the contract. UNISON wrote pointing out flawed
arguments and faulty financial information, but was ignored.
UNISON comes out fighting – with back-up!
So the UNISON branches did their own consultation, with the three branch secretaries
and sets of stewards working together. They prepared a response, gave staff
information which had not been circulated, and shared views of the pros and cons. An
internal survey run by UNISON got a 60-70% response rate and “we did whatever it
took” to contact staff in the short time – knocking on doors, visiting them at home, and
on holiday. The responses were shared across the three branches.
What gave the response real academic weight was a jointly-commissioned report
(between the branches) from APSE. This stratghtforwardly written eight-page analysis
ripped to shreds the unjustified assumptions upon which Tribal based their
recommendation to privatise. The branches said the report was the best £1,700 they
ever spent and a reassurance that they hadn’t imagined their concerns.
With regional backup, the branches used the APSE report widely. Every member got a
copy, it was left in toilets, staff rooms, and on bin lorries. The branches then lobbied
councillors and, while some were not interested, those with whom they developed good
relations were surprised that the evidence they had been given was so inaccurate.
These councillors then talked to their colleagues.
Results
On the basis of this campaign, a new report was submitted to the council, the ‘outcome’
of the review was redesigned, and the privatisation plans dropped. Two of the councils
are now looking at a joint trading company, owned and managed by the local
authorities. This is not a perfect solution, but the situation is transformed.
UNISON’s credibility is very high, and has the respect of the council officers and
members. It is now a deciding body to any decision about what happens to the
services. At a public meeting on future proposals the Chief Executive opened his report
by saying “thank you to the union for telling us how to do this properly”.
Membership has risen, and there are more reps and ULRs. Staff joined because of
worries about their future, but also because they want to be part of a union success
story.

Extract from the report
The business case starts by considering ‘strategic fit’. Merging services it is said will help in meeting a number of common business needs including cost reduction, improved efficiency, improved service control and increased citizen satisfaction. The claims are not explored much beyond these basic assertions and no consideration is given to the potential conflict between them. One such example is the assertion that ‘merging these five services is likely to bring about a higher degree of visibility and control through improved systems gathering more accurate and current performance data’. In fact, under the preferred option, control over the design of the services will pass to a private contractor and commercial sensitivities are likely to greatly restrict the free flow of information about performance levels. Moreover, the letting of a long term contract will effectively ring fence budgets and greatly undermine the ability of elected members and senior officers to make changes to service standards and requirements during the lifetime of the contract.

This lack of flexibility in long term contractual arrangements has been widely recognised as a problem for local authorities (Audit Commission, Deloitte, APSE) but even the in-house merged services option would require members of the individual Councils to sacrifice a degree of control. Clearly the nature of the contract that emerges from the procurement process will have a bearing on this but it is difficult to see how greater control will result from either of the merged service options.

A further example of how the preferred option may conflict with the identified business needs is thrown up by the bald assertion that merging the services will lead to increased levels of citizen satisfaction. It is of course possible that this will be the outcome but it might reasonably be assumed that given an option citizens would go for locally accessible services over the centrally, or even remotely, provided services implied by the merger. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the detail of John Seddon’s preference for economy of flow over economy of scale (Ibid) but the arguments he makes at least establish the need for these issues to be fully considered before assumptions can be made.

On Feb 13th at 5.30pm, a chance to engage with Marx and contemporary followers in an engaging documentary revisiting his ideas in relation to 2008 & All That – not to mention what’s followed!  The director, Jason Barker, himself a philosopher, will be there to discuss afterwards.

MARX RELOADED ‐ WHICH PILL WILL YOU TAKE?
Directed by Jason Barker, Germany, 2011, 52 mins
EXCLUSIVE SCREENING and Q & A with the director, ( & British philosopher), Jason Barker
And Holly Aylett
Tower Building, London Metropolitan University, Holloway Road
13 FEBRUARY, 17.30 – 19.30, Room TMG 58
FREE FOR ALL ‐ Students, Staff & Guests

Is today’s crisis just an unfortunate side – effect of rampant capitalism, or is there a more visionary analysis? Come and share your ideas.
Marx Reloaded revisits Karl Marx to make sense of today’s global, financial crisis. Mixing animation and interviews with a stellar cast of philosophers, including Antonio Negri, Jacques Rancière and Slavoj Žižek, the film gives voice both to sceptics and believers, leading us on a lively adventure through the matrix of Marx’s ideas.

Contact Holly Aylett (h.aylett@londonmet.ac.uk) or Johanna McKinney (j.mckinney@londonmet.ac.uk)
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
London Metropolitan University
0207 133 2432

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

Why would London Met be so keen to listen to the advice of a CEO of an outsourcing company that Andrews himself set up and then had to resign from? And why then claim ‘this isn’t outsourcing’?! Do they protest too much? Hence our open questions to the VC and Paul Bowler here:  Open questions for the VC Malcolm Gillies and Paul Bowler 16 Jan 2012

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)