Search Results for: one barnet

Issues to report back on such as

Parking ticket targets

Terms and Conditions

Bradford Factor

To view our report back to our members please click here

Once again Barnet UNISON members have agreed to take strike action. On Thursday 9 February our members will be taking their fourth day of action in response to the One Barnet Project which seeks to transfer the majority of the staff out of the Council.

The total cost of these projects will look to exceed £2Billion which is why the Big Private Sector Fat Cats are all lined up to try and win the contracts!

It would be easy for our members who are feeling exhausted & helpless to give up and just accept that they are to be handed over to the private sector. It would be dishonest if I was to say that our members morale at times has been low.

But who could blame them?

Whilst having to come to terms with being outsourced and worrying if their job will even remain in the borough (a large number of the services could easily be shipped off out of London) they are now facing more restructuring and possible compulsory redundancies before any outsourcing has taken place!

So, by agreeing to take action on Thursday 9 February, our members are making a big statement.

They want to remain Council employees; they want in-house services to be allowed to compete with the Private Sector Fat Cats, and most of all they want to serve the community they are passionate about.

That is why a group of strikers will; after taking part in the picket line, depart to help out a local Charity.

Our members want to make it clear that “whilst they will be withdrawing their labour from the Council, they are not withdrawing their commitment to the community they are so proud to serve!”

I am proud of their of their courage and determination to stand up for themselves and services in the face of the relentless political dogma. A political dogma which fails to understand and appreciate the hard work of staff currently delivering services to Barnet residents.

“Doing nothing is not an option for our members!”

This is why I am so proud of them.

John Burgess

Branch Secretary

Messages of support please to contactus@barnetunison.org.uk

Barnet UNISON Press Release: 17 October 2011

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: UNISON MEMBERS TO TAKE STRIKE ACTION & ASK COUNCIL TO DONATE MONEY TO CHARITY

 

300 UNISON members will be taking one day strike action On Tuesday 18 October as part of a Trades Dispute which concerns the identity of the employer.

 

Unlike other strike action there is a twist.

 

On the picket line outside the headquarters of Barnet Council (north London business park) UNISON members will stage a short piece of street theatre to demonstrate the dangers of One Barnet Programme to residents, services and staff.

 

There will be two performances at 9am and 9.30 am.

 

At 10.30 am a number of strikers will be taking a coach trip across the borough in order to provide help and assistance to a local charity which is desperate need of help. The strikers will spend the rest of the day carrying a number of tasks for the charity.

 

UNISON members are calling on the Leader of Barnet Council not to pocket the money he has saved from the strikers and instead donate that money to the Mayor’s Charity

• Barnet Young Carers And Siblings ‘BYCAS’
• The Outward Bound Trust
• The Alzheimer’s Society

 

Later on the same day other UNISON members are supporting ‘Operation RESDIENTS MUST KNOW!’ by handing out newspapers and leaflets to Barnet residents outside tube stations across Barnet.

 

The day’s activity will end with a Candlelight Vigil outside Hendon Town Hall from 6.30 pm before the Planning Committee begins.

 

Barnet Easy Council is promoting the ‘One Barnet Programme’ (OBP) which is being rolled out across all council services. They previously identified up £3 Million to implement what was called Future Shape policy. The latest brand One Barnet programme has £9.2 million budget to pay the bills of expensive consultants to carry out this mass outsourcing programme. The workforce implications of OBP could be that 70% of the council workforce could be transferred to the Private sector in little more than 15 months time.

 

John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said

 

“The Council is gambling that the private sector can deliver £100 million savings over the next 10 years. We have seen no evidence to substantiate these claims. In other parts of the country we have seen the consequences of such blind allegiance to public sector bad private sector good. Our members are not daft; they can see that redundancy and cuts to jobs and services are behind the transfer from the council to a private sector contractor’

 

Strike action is always a last resort, for the last three years we have been asking for a genuine dialogue with the council to explore ways to save money, improve services.

 

Barnet UNISON is asking for the One Barnet Programme to be put on hold whilst meaningful talks with staff, trade unions and residents take place to look at alternatives to the One Barnet Programme.

 

End.

 

Contact: John Burgess Barnet UNISON on 07738389569 or email: john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

 

Background

 

Information:

Barnet Easy Council gained notoriety in 2009 when they launched the budget airline model for public services. In 2010 the model was criticised in a report by the external auditors as having failed to draw up a proper business plan. The business case produced by Barnet easyCouncil supports the policy direction promoted by Prime Minister which seeks to break state provision (in this case privatise council services) and offer the Voluntary & Private Sector to run public services. 

 

Useful Links

1. What is One Barnet? – Residents newspaper ‘Our Barnet’

http://barnetalliance.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/baps_2_aug_2011-page-011.pdf

http://barnetalliance.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/baps_2_aug_2011-page-011.pdf

http://barnetalliance.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/baps_2_aug_2011-page-041.pdf

2. Audit report slams Barnet Council over MetPro scandal

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9070396.Audit_report_slams_council_over_MetPro_scandal/

3. Analysis of Development and Regulatory Services Business Case, London Borough of Barnet

http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/news/analysis-of-development-and-regulatory-service/

4. Financial review of Business Case Report for Barnet Borough Council Unison

Branch

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/Report%20to%20UNISON%20on%20DRS%20Business%20Case_0.pdf

5. Metronet http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8544491.stm

6. PFI contracts poor performance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059

7. Rip off Government IT contracts

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubadm/715/715i.pdf

 8. Public service reform … but not as we know it!

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/public-service-reform-but-not-as/

9. Pickles attacks Barnet Council

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/07/pickles-attacks-barnet-council.html

10. Barnet UNISON STRIKES BACK VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhUmnNPhGYs

 

 

 

Dear officer

Thanks for the response I have read your responses and I have a number of further questions:

 

In relation to question 1 I have been told that a day care service user contracted ‘legionnaire’s disease’ and it was this that led to the legionella check in all of the homes. Can you confirm this is the case? Furthermore you mention that “Barnet public health team has undertaken a look-back exercise” why only for eight months and not a full calendar year? In terms of this exercise did they forget or miss out Merrivale for some other reason?

 

In relation to question 2, I note that in the improvement notice Catalyst you make the following suggestion:

“You should appoint a ‘responsible person’ to take managerial responsibility and provide supervision for the implementation of precautions.”

 

This is of particular importance since the recent incident at Apthorp Lodge identified that there was a lack of communication between Catalyst, Fremantle, Kier and Musketeer. Due to the complexity of your arrangements at these care homes it is imperative that you identify clear lines of responsibilities and reporting arrangements for each of these parties.”

 

There four organisations mentioned in the above statement do they not have any health & safety responsibilities to the residents, staff and members of the public?

 

In relation to question 3 it is now three months since we were alerted by the Director of Adult Social Services to the legionella issue. Can you confirm that all three homes are now clear of any legionella infection?

 

In relation to question 4, whilst I am glad to hear we are checking for legionella, can you confirm who is paying for these checks and how long will they continue?

 

In relation to question 6 I assume from the fact you have served an ‘Improvement notice that their previous risk assessments were unsatisfactory?

·         When was the last risk assessment taken for each home ?

·         What do you mean by elevated levels of legionella?

·         What is an acceptable level legionella if as you say ‘Legionella bacteria are ubiquitous’

 

In relation to question 8, now that I understand the technical application of the term ‘outbreak’ I will endeavour not to use it in this case. If someone had approached me much earlier I would have amended my public reports to my members. At the weekend a member of the public alerted me to a story in Glasgow about what I believe is a legionella outbreak:

 

“A rise in the number of people with Legionnaires Disease in Glasgow is being investigated.

 

The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Public Health Protection Unit are to study the increase in the number of people being diagnosed.

 

Five people have recently tested positive, including an elderly man with underlying medical conditions who died last week”

 

As there are a number of investigations going on without the involvement of the trade unions you must understand that this matter is of concern both for our members, residents and members of the public. If my request for a public inquiry had been agreed we may be all been clearer about what went wrong and what mechanisms will be in place to ensure this does not happen again.

 

I would hope everyone agrees there has been a narrow escape and no one was infected. I am a little worried by your response where you say

 

“All that has happened at these care homes is that Legionella bacteria have been found in the water supply and routine action has been taken to deal with this.”

 

As I don’t know if the homes have been given the all clear it does appear that routine action has not been sufficient and suggests there are further problems.

 

In relation to question 9, I am concerned to read that despite what you describe as comprehensive attempts to deal with the legionella Catalyst are still not able to give an ‘all clear’. It does suggest the problem is more serious than was first indicated in the letter to staff in February.

 

In relation to question 10 it is clear that this matter is not a routine operation but a more complex situation which is contradictory to your response to question 8.

 

In relation to question 11, the improvement notice was served on 16 March and Catalyst had to respond by 7 April 2011.

 

I note that Failure to comply with this Improvement Notice is an offence as provided by Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and s.33 (2A) of this Act renders the offender liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both

 

Can you confirm that they have complied with the notice and if not what action is going to be taken to ensure they comply.

 

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Standing up for staff and public services

Barnet Alliance for Public Services

Barnet Council is embarking on a policy called One Barnet Programme (OBP) the fact that there is nothing ‘One Barnet’ about handing over all your services to a vast number of private sector organisations is another matter.

I have been actively pursuing answers to important questions following news that 2 former council care homes (now owned by Catalyst Housing) were found to be infected by the legionella bacteria. A month later we were informed it was now 3 care homes and Catalyst had been served an improvement notice by Barnet Council.

These are the questions

1. Can you confirm whether any resident/service user/member of the public has contracted Legionella?

2. Who is responsible for monitoring the safety of the water supply in these settings?

• Is it Barnet Council?
• Is it Catalyst Housing?
• Is it Fremantle?
• Is another organisation?

 3. When and where in each of the affected homes did they discover Legionella bacteria?

4. When was the last time each setting was checked and who has the records?

5. Does Barnet Council include issues like Health & Safety in the contract monitoring process? If not why not? If yes when were these last reviewed?

6. Are risk assessments on health & safety carried out in all of the settings?

7. As part of the contract monitoring by Barnet Council are these risk assessments reviewed? If not why not? If yes when were they last reviewed?

8. As part of good safeguarding practice have other residential care homes provided by Catalyst and Fremantle been informed about the outbreak and if so have the checks been carried out in those settings?

9. What was the cause of this outbreak and what controls have been put in place to secure the safety of the residents, staff and visitors?

10. Was a risk assessment carried out after the Legionella bacteria was discovered? If yes, what did it say and what control measures were put in place? If not why not? 

11. Can you confirm that you have issued an improvement notice and if so please provide me with a copy of the notice?

12. Have relatives of residents and day care users been informed and kept up to date on developments?’

Barnet UNISON along with Barnet Alliance for Public Services is campaigning for a Public Inquiry into what happened.

If you want to support this campaign please do the following:

1. Sign our petition here
2. Ask your MP to sign this Early Day Motion here
3. Circulate our petition and Early Day Motion to your friend and family and any mailing lists you are on.
4. Put our campaign on Face book
5. Tweet our campaign on Twitter

Barnet UNISON members

 

Super Council?

You would have woken up to news of a proposed merger of London Councils into a Super Council promising savings of £100 million a year!….I listened to the Leader of Hammersmith Council and did not hear the Private Sector mentioned once!

 

I will report on this proposal after obtaining details from the three UNISON branches involved, after all it is important to drill down and study the details of any Press headlines.

 

SouthWestOne – Somerset

Two weeks ago I sent round details of another Strategic partnership failure in Liverpool. As Strategic Partnerships are the basis on which easyCouncil will be delivered please read on:

 

I am forwarding an article which appeared in the Local Government Chronicle today. Many of you will have seen the Southwest One ITV West documentary made 18 months ago detailing the IBM takeover of services in Somerset. The project was beset with controversy.

 

Somerset UNISON fought a campaign to expose the secrecy surrounding this Project and surprise surprise the branch secretary was suspended for almost six months. I am pleased to report he is back in the UNISON office.

 

For those of you who saw the ITV West documentary will know the project was shrouded in secrecy and very few people actually saw the Business Case for the Project. I have a copy of the documentary if anyone would like to view it.

 

Bridgewater MP Ian Liddell-Grainger (Con) has been campaigning against Southwest One for over two years and fought hard to try to gain access to the Business Case.

 

I imagine Somerset County Lib-Dem councillors wish they had demanded to see the Business Case as the Lib-Dem’s were later ousted by the Conservatives in the last elections.

 

Interestingly a contingent from SouthwestOne paid a visit to Barnet during the summer. I don’t know what they discussed but after viewing this latest news I really, really hope they haven’t been advising Barnet Council on the benefits of partnerships with the Private Sector

 

Professor Dexter Whitfield was the consultant providing expert advice for Somerset UNISON Branch. Dexter said at the time “The Somerset strategic partnership with IBM was a classic example of ideologically driven outsourcing. Somerset UNISON warned about the declining level of savings and higher contract management costs. The increasing annual losses of the joint venture company serve to illustrate the high risks involved in these contracts.”

Dexter has and continues to provide expert advice for the branch.

Take a look at this report From Local Government Chronicle

Somerset joint venture loses £16m in its first year

21 October 2010 | By Ruth Keeling

A controversial joint venture between Somerset’s councils, police force and IBM has made a multi-million pound loss for the second year running.

Southwest One posted an operating loss of £16.1m in its second year of operation, according to accounts lodged with Companies House earlier this month.

The 2008-09 accounts state that the loss – a significant increase on the £2m it lost in its first year – “was larger than originally budgeted” because its investment period had to be extended and because it failed to attract new customers. A credit facility from parent company IBM means it will continue to operate for the “foreseeable future”, according to the accounts.

The joint venture was set up in September 2007 by IBM, who own three-quarters of the company, and Somerset CC and Taunton Deane BC to provide back office services including HR, finance, estates management and IT. Avon and Somerset Police later joined the partnership but it has been dogged by arguments from the first.

Most recently, it emerged that the two councils would be fined because of the extra checks that the Audit Commission had to make on their accounts prepared by the firm. Taunton Deane said it would pay its £15,000 charge itself while Somerset CC, whose leader is currently considering an internal review of the Southwest One contract, said it would pass the charge on to the company.

The contract, worth £585m over 10 years to the company, was set up with the aim of finding efficiencies for the three customers, although those savings have been downgraded from the £200m originally quoted to £144m “pipeline” savings listed in the most recent accounts.

In a statement, Southwest One emphasised that the 2008-09 figures were “a reflection that first of a kind ventures like this require up-front investment in the early stages” and stated that there had been no negative impact on the service. In fact, it added, a new customer contact centre had call waiting times for residents.

Southwest One’s accounts blamed its failure to attract new partners on the “adverse UK economic environment, coupled with a high degree of political uncertainty”.

However, the company said it was in discussion with a number of potential customers and argued that the spending review and the communities secretary’s enthusiasm for shared services would provide “significant opportunities”.

It stated: “South West One, as a pioneer in this field, is ideally-placed to help public bodies respond to this challenge”.

But Bridgewater MP Ian Liddell-Grainger (Con) branded the partnership a “failure” and questioned whether they would have any success in attracting new partners. “They’re such a tarnished outfit that short of changing their name there is no point in talking to anybody,” he said.

Somerset CC said it had no further comment to that provided by Southwest One.

Private Eye reported the same story with a little extra

 

They included a report that Somerset Council are making £75 million in cuts and have issued 1,500 redundancies…..it still amazes me why some people don’t understand why staff and residents are not worried about easyCouncil.