The simple and straight forward answer to the above question is that Council services are being punished for the global financial crisis caused by the bankers.

On 8 July the Chancellor George Osborne published his budget which set out a vicious attack on public services and the staff who provide them. There is widespread consensus that by 2020 Councils will have had their budgets cut by 40%.

Think about that figure. No private company could survive such a cut in funding. Barnet Councils response to the austerity agenda is the ‘commissioning council’ which seeks to move staff out of the council into different employment models. Whilst expensive consultants will spin the commissioning model as a new way of working, the bottom line is that they are looking to find someone who will employ staff on cheaper terms and conditions and without access to the Council Pension Scheme.

What do we know?

I know from talking to our reps and speaking to members that everyone is exhausted, angry about the relentless attacks on staff almost on a weekly basis. Feedback we are getting from members is that more and more staff are leaving the Council, which is destabilising teams and adding to the already heavy workloads.

UNISON has raised this as a concern and linked it directly to the mass outsourcing agenda, which is not only having a negative impact on current staff but is a barrier for in house services trying to recruit new staff.

It is clear from our own direct experiences of outsourced contracts that the contractors offer inferior terms and conditions; and they are not offering new staff the opportunity to be part of the Council pension scheme.

So when the Council talks about risk, it is the staff that are taking on all of the risk.

We will be speaking with our local reps and members about our responses to the following major outsourcing decisions (see below).

1. The future of the Library Services will be decided on Monday 21 September Children’s, Education, Libraries & Safeguarding Committee.

2. The future of the Education & Skills and School Meals will be decided on Wednesday 18 November at the Children’s, Education, Libraries & Safeguarding Committee.

3. The future of our Children’s Centres will be decided on Wednesday 18 November 2015 Children’s, Education, Libraries & Safeguarding Committee.

4. The future of Adults and Communities will be decided on Thursday 12 November Adults and Safeguarding Committee.

5. The future of Street Scene Services will be decided on Monday 11 January 2016 at the Environment Committee.

Barnet UNISON branch meetings

9 September 12 noon in Oak Room, Building 4, NLBP

That is the view of participants stated in the recently published Council’s Library Consultation report*.

UNISON and Library user groups challenged the fairness of the consultation from the outset, viewing it as forcing responses   accepting the Councils options as being the only ones possible for the future of our Libraries. But even with this weighting the result is a resounding no to the Council.

The report finds:

95 % support for libraries being run directly by the Council

Little support for library closures.

Condemnation of the proposed minimum average size of 540 square feet for Libraries.

Widespread praise of the expertise and professionalism of Barnet’s library staff, and a strong sense that these qualities could never be adequately replaced through the use of

The quality of the library service would be negatively affected if any of the options are implemented volunteers

Criticism of the ‘open library’ model (unstaffed libraries)  on grounds that it would pose a security risk to users, stock and facilities; as well as diluting the overall quality of the service

The Council, if it has any claim to be a democratic body responsive to the wishes of residents, must now discard the current proposals for libraries and instead present the people of Barnet with a plan that will save our Libraries and develop on the already admirable service they provide.

* Barnet’s Future Library Service: Final Report of the Consultation Outcomes.

Report of Findings for Opinion Research Services July 2015.

https://engage.barnet.gov.uk/consultation-team/library-review/user_uploads/barnet_libraries_final_full_report_2015_07_24_v2.pdf-2

IMPORTANT NEWS: Kids4Libraries march Saturday 12 September details here

This briefing itemises anti-trade-union legislation since 1980. It then looks further back into history, and examines some of the key issues in Britain’s anti-union laws.

1980 Employment Act

· Definition of lawful picketing restricted to own place of work

· 80% ballot needed to legalise a closed shop

· Funds offered for union ballots

· Restricted right to take secondary action

· Code of practice (six pickets)

· Repeal of statutory recognition procedure

· Restricts unfair dismissal and maternity rights

· Unfair dismissal rights from 1 year to 6 months in companies under 20

1982 Employment Act

· Further restrictions on industrial action – eg. definition of trade dispute

· Further restricted action to ‘own’ employer

· Employers could obtain injunctions against unions and sue unions for damages

· 80% rule extended to ALL closed shops every 5 years

· Compensation for dismissal because of closed shop

· Removed union only labour clauses in commercial contracts

1984 Trade Union Act

· EC elections every 5 years by secret ballot

· Political fund ballots every 10 years

· Secret ballots before industrial action

1986 Public Order Act

· Introduced new criminal offences in relation to picketing

1988 Employment Act

· Unions to compensate members disciplined for non-compliance with majority decisions

· Members can seek injunction if no pre-strike ballot

· Union finances to be open to inspection#

· Unions prevented from paying members’ or officials’ fines

· Action to preserve post entry closed shop made unlawful

· New restrictions on industrial action and election ballots

· Ballots for separate workplaces

· Ballots for non-voting EC members

· Election addresses controlled

· Independent scrutiny

· Establishment of CROTUM (Commissioner for the Rights Of Trade Union Members)

1989 Employment Act

· Tribunal pre-hearing review and proposed deposit of £150

· Exemption of small employer from providing details of disciplinary procedures

· Restricts time off with pay for union duties

· Written reasons for dismissal now require 2 years’ service

· Redundancy rebates abolished

· Abolition of training commission

1990 Employment Act

· Attack on pre-entry closed shop – unlawful to refuse to employ non-union member

· All secondary action now unlawful

· Unions liable for action induced by ANY official unless written repudiation using statutory form of words sent to all members

· Selective dismissal of strikers taking unofficial action

· Extended power of CROTUM

1992 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act

· Brings together all collective employment rights including trade union finances and elections; union members’ rights including dismissal, time off; redundancy consultation; ACAS, CAC and CROTUM; industrial action legislation

· Does not cover individual rights like unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, maternity etc (these are covered by 1978 EPCA)

1993 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act

· Individuals can seek injunction against unlawful action#

· Creation of Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

· 7 days notice of ballots and of industrial action

· Members to be involved in ballot to be identified

· Attack on Bridlington procedures

· Written consent for check-off every three years

· Financial records, including salaries, to be available

· Checks on election ballots

· Independent scrutiny of strike ballots

· All industrial action ballots to be postal

· Postal ballots on union mergers

· New powers for Certification Officer to check union finances

· Higher penalties against unions failing to keep proper accounts

· ‘Wilson/Palmer’ Amendment (sweeteners to those moving to individual contracts)

· Unlawful to dismiss heath & safety rep in course of duties and those walking off unsafe site

· Right of individual to challenge collective agreement in contravention of equal treatment terms

· Changes to Transfer of Undertakings Regulations

· Changes to redundancy terms (consultation)

· Abolition of Wages Councils

· Changes to Tribunals and EAT procedures

1999 Employment Relations Act

· Amendments to Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

· Recognition and negotiation procedures for employers with at least 21 workers, establishment of bargaining unit

· Derecognition from loss of trade union independence or majority support of bargaining unit

· Complaint process for use of political funds and breach of union disciplinary, electoral or other internal rules

· Dismissal for participation in official industrial action deemed unfair

· Ballot and notice provisions for strike or industrial action

· Abolishes offices of Commissioner for Rights of Trade Union Members and Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

· Funds to be provided to assist in developing employment partnerships

· Amends Employment Rights Act and TULRA to prevent complaint over unfair dismissal if action for purposes of national security

Information from the Institute of Employment Rights

History

· Anti-union laws go back to the time of the Pyramids: 5,000 years ago

· 1306: Royal Proclamation Against Congregations and Chapter

· 1799-1800: Anti-combination laws

· 1859: Tolpuddle Martyrs transported to Australia for swearing illegal oaths ie. organising a union

· 1906: Taff Vale Railway Company vs Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (ASRS, forerunner of RMT) judgment: unions liable for loss of employers’ profits caused by strikes; overturned by Trades Disputes Act 1906

· 1909: Osborne judgment: trade unions could no longer use their funds for political purposes; overturned by Trade Union Act 1913, which allowed unions to have political funds that members can opt out of

Since 1979

· Tories introduced anti-union legislation salami-style, because the unions were strong enough to defeat a full-scale legal assault.

· There was a progressive weakening of trade unions, via legislation and their own ineffectiveness.

· Legislation in response to major strikes eg. Grunwick, miners

· Lack of democracy in unions (eg. Leaders elected for life) opened the door for the Tories’ anti-union laws

Issues and arguments

· While governments claim that union legislation gives ‘fairness’, there are no ‘mirror-image’ laws for employers eg. no requirement to elect the Managing Director every five years, or to hold a ballot before imposing changes to terms and conditions!

· Legal requirement for industrial action authorised by postal ballots rather than workplace meetings:

o workers vote at home, where they are under different pressures

o the time taken to hold the ballot delays the action

o the ballot does not include discussion on details of what action is taken, whereas a workplace meeting can

· Despite anti-union laws, workers do still have the right to strike, and the union needs to remind and reassure them of this

Key Messages

· All improvements to our rights have been won by struggle.

· These laws do not exist to make industrial relations fair, but to stop workers fighting back.

· The timeline shows progressive attacks by government on union rights and effectiveness.

YET THEY ARE STILL SCARED OF THE TRADE UNIONS & ARE BRINGING IN THE TRADE UNION BILL TO ATTEMPT TO END WORKERS RIGHTS AT WORK.

Background:

There is now only one private contractor bidding for the Education & School Meals services Mott MacDonald trading under Cambridge Education. They do not have experience of providing Catering Services so they have formed a partnership with ISS who will deliver the Catering Service. As there is only one bidder it is highly likely that these contractors will be given the contract sometime in November this year.

Our members had the chance to meet the contractors on Thursday and asked some interesting questions. Unfortunately the detailed discussions about the future of the services will be take place in secret with the trade unions and staff unable to know what is in store for staff & the service.

UNISON has submitted the questions below to the Council and have asked them to pass them onto Cambridge Education & ISS.

Cambrdge Education currently have a contract with Slough and ISS have lots of big contracts. We understand that ISS are currently providing a Catering service to Woodridge School a Barnet School.

We sent the following email to all our members on Friday 10 July.

Dear Colleagues

Barnet UNISON has submitted the following questions to Cambridge Education & ISS.

The Education and Skills questions apply to both contractors. The Catering Services questions apply specifically to ISS.

Education and Skills

1. Will each contractor provide a guarantee that the bulk of the current workforce will remain employed in Barnet?

2. What are the planned staffing levels for each service after transfer?

3. What protection of terms and conditions, such as the London Living Wage, will be offered to transferred staff over and above TUPE?

4. What measures will each contractor take to prevent a two-tier workforce and excessive use of temporary/casual staff?

5. What are the contractors approach to industrial relations with trade unions and how will they be managed within the JVC?

6. What plans does Cambridge Education have to improve the quality of services and when do they anticipate implementing them?

7. Does Cambridge Education and ISS plan to subcontract other Education and Skills services, if so, which ones and what are the names of the contractors?

8. How does Cambridge Education plan to increase traded income of the Education and Skills services;

a. within Barnet

b. outside the Borough

9. What proposals do Cambridge Education and ISS have engaging with staff and trade unions in the planning and delivery of services?

10. How will the contractors workforce development policies be applied in the Barnet JVC, and if there any differences between the two contractors, how will these be developed into a common policy for the JVC?

11. How will the two contractors coordinate and develop a common approach in the search for traded income when there are distinctive differences between their respective markets?

12. Will the JVC take on responsibility for the accrued Pension Deficit as at the transfer date?

13. Will the JVC and contractors be required to use current corporate services, for example, Capita CSG, Re, accommodation?

Catering Service

14. What process did Cambridge Education use to select ISS to be their subcontractor?

15. Has Cambridge Education experience of managing an ISS subcontract in the past, and if so, which public body?

16. What experience does Cambridge Education have in managing and monitoring a catering contract operated by a multinational catering contractor?

17. What mechanisms will be in place in the Joint Venture to review the performance of the subcontractor?

18. What plans does ISS have to improve the quality of school meals and how will they be implemented?

19. How does ISS plan to increase traded income of the Catering Service:

a. within Barnet

b. outside the Borough

We will publish any responses to our members.

John Burgess Branch Secretary Barnet UNISON

Barnet UNISON Press Release: 10 July 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Local Trade Unionist Victim of Hate Crime

It is with deepest anger I have to report that our Barnet UNISON branch secretary, John Burgess, had his car vandalised as it was parked up outside his own home. After the day’s activities on 8^th July, which involved a strike and protests, John returned home to find a large note stuck on his car windshield: “Fucking Union Faggotts Get Back Home From Here!” and a nail stuck into a front wheel of his car. This came within 2 weeks of the Barnet UNISON banner, and a branch presence which of course included John, proudly appearing on the Pride Demo. It is our view this particular use of offensive language is far too coincidental for us not to understand this as an attack on John as a trade unionist and also for being seen on the Pride demo.

We also think there is a strong coincidence that our branch was a very early signatory to the Unite Against Fascism statement about the proposed Fascist gathering in Golders Green and encouraged our members to attend the protest last weekend (4^th July). We are proud that we were part of a larger community mobilisation which meant Fascists could not raise their heads in our community. Fascists are organisations which peddle hatred and what happened to John is in every sense a Hate crime which has been reported to the police.

John has a job to do and that is to represent the members of his union branch. We choose him year after year as we believe he is the best placed person to do this. He enjoys the confidence of the branch membership. This means whoever did this is trying to intimidate and silence all of our membership. We will not be silenced!

We believe it is the demonisation of trade unions by the current Government which also encourages this type of personal attack on individual trade unionists. We condemn such attacks and call on our supporters to rally round and show solidarity and support to one who has done nothing other than defend us and offer solidarity to all those fighting the effects of Austerity and oppression.” Helen Davies, Branch Chair Barnet UNISON.

George Binette, branch secretary, Camden UNISON had this to say: “On behalf of Camden UNISON I express our shock and horror at the vicious homophobic vandalism carried out against John Burgess, Barnet UNISON branch secretary. This attack is a perverse tribute to the effectiveness of John’s tireless commitment to both his members and the defence of public services. Unfortunately, all too many politicians and sections of the media seem set to whip up a Jeremy Clarkson-style climate where it is literally open season on active trade unionists. Solidarity with John and the Barnet branch.”

End.

Notes to Editors.

 

Contact details: Helen Davies Barnet UNISON on 07432733168 or 0208 359 2088 or email: Helen.Davies@barnetunison.org.uk

What has commissioning meant for workers?

If you want to have a look at what commissioning has meant for workers you don’t have far to look. Just take a look at social care services.

Where did it all start?

The advent of the NHS & Community Care Act 1990 brought the introduction of the purchaser/provider split. In Commissioning Council speak it means commissioning (purchaser) and service deliver unit (provider). Our Council now promotes itself as a Commissioning Council and our internal structures provide an example of in house and outsourced service delivery units.

Workforce issues.

The introduction of the purchase/provider split brought the market into social services. The Trade Unions quick saw that this was an attack on the workforce and that it would lead to a race to the bottom. The union also predicted it would have an impact on service quality and how right we were. It sounds difficult to believe but there are still people (paid extraordinary amounts of public money) who still try to argue there is no link between deteriorating terms & conditions and pay and service quality.

Zero hours contract & no pension not paying for travel time.

Everyone now knows about the ‘zero hour’ exploitation of care workers. In Barnet our care workers were on permanent contracts, and were members of our pension scheme and were paid for travel time. They were outsourced and outsourced again. Their terms & conditions have been destroyed by private contractors. UNISON tried to get Barnet Council to sign up to the UNISON ethical care charter . They refused and officers convinced it was too expensive.

Thanks to commissioning, care workers are on inferior terms & conditions and will not be in our Council Pension scheme.

It not our fault, blame the commissioners.

This is what our branch has faced when presented with the implications of the two tier workforce. When we start negotiations the contractor replies by saying it is not their fault and that we should go back to the commissioners. When the unions go back to the commissioners they say they don’t get involved in internal matters of the contractor.

Commissioning is all about outsourcing.

The Council are quick to say that commissioning is not all about outsourcing. But the facts tell a different story. Over the last three years there have been 12 outsourcing project decisions and not one of them has recommended in-house services.

Outsourcing list January 2012 – June 2015

1. YCB

2. Housing options

3. NSL

4. CSG

5. Re

6. Music Trust

7. Registrars service

8. Legal services

9. Public Health

10. Mortuary

11. CCTV

12. Recycling depot (1 October 2015)

 

In all the above cases workers were transferred out of Barnet to a new employer. 

That is right over 1 million people are about to hear all about what is happening to Barnet Council workers.

On Friday the branch advertised that we were using an online social media tool called Thunderclap & over the weekend the results have been incredible.

The latest figures are standing at 1,036,409 people all of whom are about to read about the reasons we are taking strike action on Wednesday 8 July.

You can read the update here.

https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/28471-support-the-barnetstrikers

So, make sure you joining one of the following picket lines to make sure you are included in one of the most important SELFIES in out union’s history.

Join Helen from 7 am outside NLBP

Join Hugh from 9 am outside East Finchley Library

Join John from 5 am outside Mill Hill depot (I’m guessing Mill Hill may not be top of your list).

To all Barnet UNISON members you can still show solidarity in many ways click here to find out more

The Council are considering options for the future of the Library Service. £2.8 million is to be cut from the Library budget with up to 68% of this coming from staffing.  There is no option for the Service to remain in-house.

As part of this review process the long awaited (threatened?)  Open+ Pilot started at Edgware Library this week.  This allow members of the public to enter the Library before and after staffed opening hours. If the Council deem the pilot a success it will be extended to all of Barnet Library Service.

Extending access appears to be a good development, but it will result in fewer Library staff and less staffed opening hours. The Council has stated:

“The use of technology can now allow the Council to open and close a library without the need for any staff to be on site – the ‘open’ library” (Libraries Strategy: 1.15)

&

“To achieve the level of savings required from the service will require a reduction in staffed opening hours.” (Libraries Strategy: 1.16)

The Council are considering having staff present for only 50% of current Library opening hours.

But the drive to remove experienced, qualified and dedicated Library worker from our Libraries does not stop there. The Council are contemplating a:

“Move to an entirely unstaffed opening model. The third approach would still require staffing to maintain effective running of the library (for example in re-stocking) but these would not be offering information and advice to visitors. Some of this work could be done by volunteers.” 

(Libraries Strategy: Appendix A Library Options Paper October 2014 6.8)

The Open+ Library Project will lead to posts being cut, and a decline in the quality of Barnet Libraries.  UNISON have opposed this since the Council’s intentions were announced last autumn. The next step in this struggle and the fight to save all Council Services is the industrial action on July 8^th.  

 

Strike. Picket. Lobby details here & how you can help here

Competition – three, two, one

Three original bidders reduced to two when EC Harris LLP withdrew just before the procurement dialogue process began. In late June Capita Business Services Ltd withdraw because “…this particular opportunity did not provide the right fit with their Entrust (Staffordshire) business model.” This leaves Cambridge Education (Mott MacDonald) with no competition, because Barnet Council made a decision not to develop an in-house option.

Subcontracting of catering confirmed

Our earlier report in June predicted the ‘Threat of large-scale subcontracting’ which proved correct when Capita and Mott MacDonald revealed catering subcontractors.

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/Barnet%20Education%20&%20Skills%20subcontracting_0.pdf

Mott MacDonald, not Barnet Council, selected ISS to be its catering subcontractor.

New key issues

1. The lack of competition seriously undermines the credibility of the procurement process and places Barnet Council in a weak negotiating position. Obtaining Best Value in these circumstances is highly unlikely.

2. It is evident the Catering Service is included in the contract for the “…viability of the venture” (Council response to our earlier report). In other words, the justification is financial, not operational synergy. Catering makes a relatively large net contribution to the Council budget and potential additional income is nearly twice that of the services included in the contract. This reinforces our recommendation that Catering should be retained in-house.

3. Subcontracting catering means savings will be split three-ways with Barnet Council sandwiched between two global contractors of Mott MacDonald and ISS.

4. The Council chose not to disclose to councillors, staff and the trade unions that ISS were are already involved in the Dialogue.

5. UNISON is concerned that low paid catering workers will bear the brunt of the demand for efficiency savings and profits leading to changes to terms and conditions and a two-tier workforce.

6. The quality of school meals could be threatened.

7. The current situation raises entirely new risks, which must be identified, allocated and estimated as a matter of urgency and reported to the Children, Education, Libraries and Safeguarding Committee.

8. Has Cambridge Education (Mott MacDonald) any experience in managing a global catering contractor like ISS? Will the Council have to monitor the subcontractor either directly or through Cambridge Education or Mott MacDonald? The Council is already having to create more posts within commissioning in order to effectively monitor the growing number of contractors. This is adding to the cost of outsourcing and reinforces UNISON’s previous view that the ‘thin client’ does not work.

9. We strongly recommend the Council postpone the procurement process and exclude the Catering Service from the JVC option and retain in-house.

Competition – three, two, one

Three original bidders reduced to two when EC Harris LLP withdrew just before the procurement dialogue process began. In late June Capita Business Services Ltd withdraw because “…this particular opportunity did not provide the right fit with their Entrust (Staffordshire) business model.” This leaves Cambridge Education (Mott MacDonald) with no competition, because Barnet Council made a decision not to develop an in-house option.

Subcontracting of catering confirmed

Our earlier report in June predicted the ‘Threat of large-scale subcontracting’ which proved correct when Capita and Mott MacDonald revealed catering subcontractors.

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/Barnet%20Education%20&%20Skills%20subcontracting_0.pdf

Mott MacDonald, not Barnet Council, selected ISS to be its catering subcontractor.

New key issues

1. The lack of competition seriously undermines the credibility of the procurement process and places Barnet Council in a weak negotiating position. Obtaining Best Value in these circumstances is highly unlikely.

2. It is evident the Catering Service is included in the contract for the “…viability of the venture” (Council response to our earlier report). In other words, the justification is financial, not operational synergy. Catering makes a relatively large net contribution to the Council budget and potential additional income is nearly twice that of the services included in the contract. This reinforces our recommendation that Catering should be retained in-house.

3. Subcontracting catering means savings will be split three-ways with Barnet Council sandwiched between two global contractors of Mott MacDonald and ISS.

4. The Council chose not to disclose to councillors, staff and the trade unions that ISS were are already involved in the Dialogue.

5. UNISON is concerned that low paid catering workers will bear the brunt of the demand for efficiency savings and profits leading to changes to terms and conditions and a two-tier workforce.

6. The quality of school meals could be threatened.

7. The current situation raises entirely new risks, which must be identified, allocated and estimated as a matter of urgency and reported to the Children, Education, Libraries and Safeguarding Committee.

8. Has Cambridge Education (Mott MacDonald) any experience in managing a global catering contractor like ISS? Will the Council have to monitor the subcontractor either directly or through Cambridge Education or Mott MacDonald? The Council is already having to create more posts within commissioning in order to effectively monitor the growing number of contractors. This is adding to the cost of outsourcing and reinforces UNISON’s previous view that the ‘thin client’ does not work.

9. We strongly recommend the Council postpone the procurement process and exclude the Catering Service from the JVC option and retain in-house.