What happens when workers stand together and fight back – Lambeth

“Lambeth UNISON wins their first victory against the cuts but “the fight is not over”

Lambeth UNISON won an important early victory in their anti-cuts campaign. CYPS Convenor Andy Tullis informed members of the victory soon after the announcement and explained the lessons all union members can learn from the One O’clock club campaign:

“Under the huge pressure that we have exerted through all our campaigning work in the last month Lambeth Council (stunned by the public outcry) have withdrawn their proposals for One O’clock Clubs and agreed to assimilate all staff in Adventure Playgrounds. This is a marvellous step forward for our campaign and shows what we can achieve if we stick together and unite with the community to fight the cuts.  Full credit must go to the One O’clock Club and Adventure Playground staff who have played a magnificent role in getting themselves organised and gaining public support.  This shows that if we organise win can win.”

The One O’Clock clubs have almost total union density and quickly organised themselves to fight cuts alongside parents who use their service.

UNISON stewards in the clubs were delighted by the news and commented:

“We feel we’ve won the first battle! It was the first victory because of the nature of what they were trying to do — these cuts were not budget-led. In fact the new set up would have cost more. The council had been planning this attack for some time, and after the election they jumped on the Lib-Con government’s bandwagon. The council’s arguments were totally implausible. They claimed they were replacing unqualified people with better qualified staff… In that case, why not use the existing procedures? Management just ended up looking stupid. It was clear they wanted to attack the union and attack the service we run.”

But nobody in the Lambeth branch is ready to sit back and enjoy their victory, the fight goes on and they have vowed to fight for every job and every service.

£6 Million of public money!

Sad person that I am, I was trawling through the Cabinet Resources Committee papers. Agenda Item 10 Monitoring 2010/11 Report.

The relevant section:

4.3 The arbitrator in the Catalyst dispute has found partially in favour in Catalyst. The cost to the Council to March 2010 has not been finally determined, but will be up to £6m. The cost will be funded from the risk reserve (currently £17.7m), leaving a reduced balance to manage other risks, including Icelandic bank deposits.

I am very angry. This is public money that will not benefit Barnet residents. Unfortunately I have a long memory and fought hard with UNISON members to oppose this back in 1999.

We produced reports with Professor Dexter Whitfield, opposing the rush to privatise this service, but councillors were being scared into making a rushed and poorly thought out decision.

Unfortunately despite our best efforts and genuine commitment to work with our employer, battle lines were drawn, and none of our recommendations were acknowledged.

The above Deficit Claim by Catalyst Housing (the Partner with Fremantle Trust) ends a long and very bitter four years which has seen the former council workers TUPED to Fremantle Trust have their terms and conditions ripped apart.

The sad fact is public money has been handed over and for what gain?

In the space of a couple of weeks we have seen former council services contracted out in the newspaper headlines Barnet Homes with Edward Meakins, the news of the potential imminent collapse of Connaught the contractor providing council house repairs services and today Catalyst Housing Association .

This is why the Trade Unions are campaigning against the Future Shape programme in its current state.

Very soon I will receive a draft report with proposals to undermine our redundancy scheme and no doubt be informed sometime this year about some pretty savage cuts to public services and redundancy for our members.

How we could do with that £6 million now, and don’t get me started about Icelandic Banks!

I am so angry.

 

 

What is going on in Essex County Council?

Barnet UNISON may remember Essexx UNISON speaking at our  Annual General Meeting. At the time Essex were promoting the privatisation of the whole fo the Council (sounds familiar!).

Later we heard that this had been ditched but a contract was signed with IBM. Today I received a cutting from the local press the articles headline

“Is county councils ambitious IT project on hold”

“Mystery surrounds the future of the scheme designed to save taxpayers money. In a bid to save up to £300 million, Essex Councty Council recently joined forces with software giant IBM.

However it has emerged the council’s leader for the project has been placed on indefinite leave.

 

You can read the full article here and here.

 

Barnet Alliance for Public Services meeting 23 September

Barnet Trades Council are organising a mass community meeting on

Thursday 23rd September

7-9pm, Emerald Suite, North London Business Park (NLBP),

Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1GN

Speakers invited include :

Alasdair Smith, Anti Academies Alliance,

John Lister Health Emergency

Shirley Franklin, Defend Whittington Hospital Coalition

Ken Loach, Film Director

Barnet Council – Use of Consultants

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said:

 “Greater openness in spending is the best way to root out waste, spot duplication and increase value for money. That is why I have been asking councils to ‘show me the money’ so local taxpayers can see where their hard earned cash is going.”

 

Barnet has already published their details for April to June 2010.

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/expenditure_by_supplier_apr-jun_2010.xls

 

I am glad this data has been published because I have been asking, unsuccessfully, for the data on consultancy spend for several years. Whilst no organisation as large as the council can ever be fully staffed it is important there are effective controls on staffing costs.

 

There are a number of questions I will be asking:  

  • If we need all the consultants listed has a full business case has been produced?
  • How is the council capturing the skills and expertise of the consultant to transfer to Council staff.
  •  
  • What is the purpose and how will the work of the consultant will be performance managed?
  • Are we complying with HRMC guidelines for the employment of consultants?

 

Severance/Redundancy Pay talks…….

Monday 16 August was the first meeting to discuss proposals. I can reveal that…………we did not discuss any proposals. That is right you read correctly, none have been drafted. The employer was hoping the Trade Unions would have some suggestions as to what was or was not up for discussion.

I have to say I was surprised by this approach. I say this because of the complete disregard to the Trade Union and staff contributions on Future Shape programme. I estimate we have submitted over 30 detailed reports on Future Shape and have yet to receive any meaningful response.

I pointed out that similar consultations are taking places across councils in London. However, there is a big difference in Barnet. No other Council is adopting the ‘mass privatisation’ or ‘commissioning model’ whilst at the same time attempting to squeeze out as much as they can from hard working council staff.

When changes such as these are proposed usually a draft proposal is submitted to the Trade Unions. After reading the proposal the Trade Unions would offer amendments. Once a final version has been reached the Trade Unions will consult with members.

 

In this case the proposal is estimated to impact on over 6,000 staff including staff working in community schools.

 

Members will no doubt remember that the Council has given a deadline, 25 October. This is the date of the General Functions Committee where Policies need to be agreed by councillors.

 

We said that this date was not feasible as 30 days have already been wasted since we were first informed of the intention to change the two policies. We made the point that a significant number of staff (community schools) were not due back for another three weeks. Even if we had a proposal they could not be consulted until they return.

 

We asked for the deadline to be extended. This was refused.

We explained that members were not happy with the prospect of further attacks on their terms and conditions whilst at the same time facing the prospect of being privatised and having a two year pay freeze! Staff are already under pressure to deliver services with less staff, we have had reports that staff are receiving further pressure with regards, ill health, tea breaks and flexible working.

 

I think it is safe to say Barnet staff aren’t happy.

I asked that a proposal be submitted to the Trade Unions in order we can discuss and provide comments and consult with our members.

 

It was agreed and  two meetings have been timetabled for the 1 and 23 September.

 

In the interim, once we receive the proposal, we will begin consultation with our members.

 

How will UNISON consult?

It is important that your union negotiators fully understand the views of the majority of members. In order to maximise the involvement of our members we will write to all our members at their home address. If you have moved home recently please can you contact the UNISON branch at contactus@barnetunison.org.uk with your new details.

 

A ballot paper will be included with the letter which we will be asking you to complete and return in the prepaid envelope enclosed.

 

Make sure you complete and send back your ballot paper and check with other UNISON members in your team that they have done the same.

 

Legal Advice

As soon as I first raised this issue I was inundated by questions as to whether UNISON was seeking legal advice. I can confirm legal advice has been requested. However, I would ask members not to raise hopes that this issue will be addressed through legal challenges. Trade Union history is not about gaining benefits to terms and conditions by winning a legal argument. The gains we all take for granted were earned through the hardship and sacrifices of workers. It may be a surprise for some members to learn there is a legal minimum employer’s calculation for redundancy pay. The Council currently pays more than the legal minimum. 

Barnet UNISON members working for Connaught face uncertain future…

It has been a matter of public record that Connaught have been experiencing serious issues

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mears-revels-in-connaughts-woes-as-cuts-fuel-demand-2055319.html

The latest share price 13.84p

http://investing.thisismoney.co.uk/companyresearch/11390/Connaught/company_research.html

Barnet UNISON members working for Connaught were told they had been served notice by barnet Homes. Our members who less than 5 years ago were working for barnet council ensure repairs and maintenance of the council housing stock. They have been transferred two times and face a third transfer in less than 6 years!

Barnet Homes have served notice on Connaught that they intend to terminate their contract with them in February 2011. This six month notice period is in accordance with terms laid out in the original contract.

The two questions

·         Who will provide the service in future for council tenants?

·         What will happen to the staff?

Barnet Homes are going out to procurement for all of their future maintenance suppliers, so an organisation or organisations are likely to be appointed in due course.

Barnet UNISON have already asked that the staff are TUPED back to Barnet Homes, whilst I understand that will be one of the options looked at it is the Option we want to happen.

We are therefore asking Barnet Homes staff to sign our petition to bring this workforce back to Barnet Homes.

Please contact UNISON Convenor Anne Denison for a copy of the form or you can download the form online here.

 

 

 

Chris Leary Surrey UNISON on their in-house call Centre

1. What is your name?

Chris Leary

 2. What branch and who do you work for?

I’m a member of the Surrey County branch of UNISON, and I work as an Employee Services Officer for Surrey County Council.

 3. What is your role in the branch?

Communications Officer, Convenor for the Change & Efficiency Directorate and the Chief Executive’s Office, Shared Service Centre & Contact Centre Steward

4. Do you have a call centre?  

Yes, our Contact Centre is based in Conquest House in Kingston upon Thames.

 5. What services does the call centre provide for?

It is the first point of contact for the County Council. It handles queries for Libraries, Registration service, Roads and transport, Schools, childcare and adult education, Adult social care, Children’s social care, recruitment, suppliers and payments for music lessons and the arts service. People can call one number and renew their library book, book a wedding ceremony, report pot holes, vulnerable children and adults to social services, find out about adult education courses in their area, and much more.

6. How long ago has the call centre been in place?

The call centre was established in 2003.

7. How is the new call centre performing?

Excellently. It has won numerous awards for customer service, and is seen as a benchmark throughout the entire public sector for customer service and contact. Just recently it was shortlisted for Best Customer Service in the European Call Centre Awards 2010, placing it alongside blue chip companies such as energy company Scottish Power, insurance firm LV=, telecommunications business Telefonica O2 UK and supermarket chain Tesco.

 8. Is your Council looking to privatise the service?

Not at the moment!

9. Have you got a message for Barnet UNISON customer Service members?

Your bosses might like to tell you that the public sector is bloated and inefficient, but Surrey has shown that to be absolute rubbish. With the right investment and support, public services can more than compete with the “big boys and girls” of the private sector. Keep tall, keep fighting, and show them why public is best!

£123 Billion lost every year!

The following report has been produced by the PCS trade union in response to the latest proposal to cut posts. The report provides an analysis and data on a major income deficit (£123 Billion a year) which in the current financial climate you would think a responsible government should be addressing. Instead they are targeting Benefit Fraud (£1.5bn a year).

Report begins:

The financial crisis was not caused by excessive public spending. That is vital to bear in mind when we hear all around us that the ‘deficit’ must be cut.

This is not a spending crisis this is an income crisis.

In the above chart the ‘deficit’ is the gap or difference between what the government spends (the top line in the chart) and what it receives in income (shown on the bottom line of the chart). That deficit for this year was originally estimated to be £178 Billion. That original estimate has now been revised using more up to date figures and is now estimated to be £156 Billion. A difference between the two estimates of £22 Billion.

The lack of tax revenue did not cause the current financial crisis. The reason for that substantial fall in government income you can see on the chart in 2008 was as a result of the downturn in economic activity – the recession sparked by the near collapse of the worlds banking system. Bailing out the banks in the UK cost £1.3 Trillion, which is 1,300 Billion pounds. The recession increased unemployment and hit tax revenues.

 What the Con Dem government don’t want to talk about is the Tax Gap.

That is the difference between what the government would receive in tax if everyone paid what they should pay and what it actually receives. The difference between what it should receive and what it actually receives is the tax gap; estimates from the PCS union indicate the gap to be £123 Billion, which is 123,000 million pounds.

I repeat that figure again because members are being bombarded by anti-public services propaganda every day.

Tax Gap £123 Billion

PCS asked Richard Murphy a Chartered Accountant and a Tax expert to research and calculate the size of the tax gap. That research has now been published and the tax gap is estimated at £123 Billion, which is 123,000 million pounds per year.

That £123 Billion is made up of three amounts:

·         £25 Billion avoided.

·         £70 Billion evaded.

·         £28 Billion not collected.

The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is as Denis Healy once said “the thickness of a prison wall”. Tax is avoided by exploiting loopholes in tax law. 

The TUC pamphlet “The missing Billions” estimates that £25 Billion each year is avoided by corporations and rich individuals. The pamphlet gives examples of some of the measures used to avoid tax.

One well known example is the tax avoidance used by rich individuals running private equity firms who by classifying their income as capital gains pay 22% less tax than they would otherwise pay if they declared it as income and were subject to income tax at the top rate. Hence one multi-millionaire private equity partner admitted that he paid less tax than his cleaner. The reason for this was, at the time, Capital Gains Tax stood at a rate of 18% whereas the top rate of income tax stood at 40%, a difference of 22%. In his budget speech on 22 June George Osborne said,

“Some of the richest people in this country have been able to pay less tax than the people who clean for them.

That is not fair – and it stems from the avoidance activity that has exploited the wider gap between the rate of Capital Gains Tax and the top rates of income tax.

These practices are costing other taxpayers over £1 Billion every year”

And he raised Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 28%. Great you may think. However, what he did not point out was that the top rate of income tax is now 50%, so with Capital Gains Tax now at 28% the gap between the two is still 22%. Those richest people in the country will still be exploiting that loophole.

£70 Billion Tax evaded

The Richard Murphy report estimates tax evaded to be £70 Billion. The report shows why the official HMRC estimate of tax avoided and evaded totalling £40 Billion is way too low particularly for tax evaded. This is because HMRC concentrates its efforts on those who do make tax returns and ignore the significant elements in society who evade the system altogether. By definition tax evasion is a criminal offence and (surprise, surprise) those evading tax do not tell HMRC about their activities. By relying on data supplied to HMRC they are missing the evasion that is completely outside the tax system.

However, for indirect taxes such as VAT, HMRC employs a ‘top-down’ approach. The gap is estimated by comparing the net theoretical tax yield, which involves assessing the total amount of expenditure in the economy that is liable to VAT, with actual VAT receipts. The difference is the VAT gap. This approach is rational because it seeks to establish the likely tax due independent of data submitted to HMRC. This ‘top- down’ method is the approach adopted by Richard Murphy in his report.

An example of tax evasion was demonstrated in a recent criminal case where an organised gang were convicted of defrauding HMRC of £4.5 Million. They submitted refund claims in the names of fictitious migrant labourers claiming they had overpaid income tax. Now at this point you may think that there is a bit of a flaw in this cunning plan. Given that the details provided to HMRC are for people who don’t actually exist, and haven’t actually paid any income tax, how can they get a refund on tax they haven’t paid? Not a problem. HMRC made the repayments without checking, the gang got £4.5 million from HMRC. This is because HMRC adopted the attitude of ‘pay now, check later’. The judge Christopher Hardy in sentencing the gang also raised concerns about HMRC’s system, “Trust has become a very risky and unwise basis in this day and age with which to disperse millions of pounds of public money”

We agree with the judge. Hence one of the recommendations in the Richard Murphy report is that HMRC should engage staff to check tax repayments before they are made. This isn’t rocket science.

£28 Billion Tax not collected

This is not an estimate. It is the published figure from HMRC as at 31 March 2010 for monies that have been declared or assessed but not paid to HMRC. That debt does not come in by magic and HMRC employs part of its workforce in the Debt Management and Banking section. A section that has also been cut, in the HMRC drive to close offices and reduce its staffing.

Richard Murphys report and PCS say:-

·         More staff should be employed to tackle tax avoidance.

·         More staff should be employed to tackle tax evasion.

·         More staff should be employed to recover tax not collected.

·         We want tax justice. We all have to pay our tax. The banks, the big corporations, the super rich and the criminals should pay their tax too.

End.

1 193 194 195 196 197 226