397 jobs “The true cost of One Barnet outsourcing”

After months of TUPE consultation with Barnet Council and Capita about the proposed mass privatisation of key council services, the true human cost has finally been revealed in the latest Measures letter sent to the Unions today.

Since the decision to award the contract to Capita, UNISON has been trying to ascertain the true cost to staff and jobs.

This letter reveals the massive scale of job losses. Out of *597 posts currently providing Council services to Barnet residents only 200 will remain within the borough of Barnet, meaning *397 posts will be deleted/redundant.

The number of job losses in our community is significantly much higher than was being claimed by the council when the contract was first announced in December 2012.

Did this have to happen?

No, Barnet Council could have inserted a clause into the contract which stated the Council would only consider bids which promised to bring jobs to their community. This is not an uncommon factor when councils are looking at outsourcing as an option. Indeed Capita have recently won a contract with Staffordshire County Council to deliver services which includes a commitment to bring 1,613 additional jobs to their community.

UNISON will continue through the TUPE consultations with Capita and the Council to try and reduce the number of redundancies.

* Still awaiting a decision for Procurement services (12 posts)

TUPE regulations http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655

Your Choice Care Workers Campaign update 17 March 2013

This campaign concerns the plight of low paid social care workers facing a massive cut to their pay and terms & conditions. The scale of the attack is unprecedented and will drive already low paid workers further into poverty.

But it is not just the attacks to staff which are our concern, it is the impact this will have on the service delivery to vulnerable adults with disabilities.

UNISON is concerned that by ‘dumbing down’ care work will impact on quality of care as we have seen in the past at the private Winterbourne hospital where profit was put before care of residents.

‘Your Choice’ care workers are carrying out critical and personal care for vulnerable service users; which makes it all the more abhorrent to hear the case for these cuts is driven by the need to make a profit.

At a meeting with staff last week, it now appears the finances are worse that we were first led to believe. Apart from the £1million loan from Barnet Homes, they now need to make another £1million from staff costs. This makes a total of £2million out of a budget of £6million.

UNISON is campaigning to bring these critical services back into the Council. The more we learn about the finances the more concerned we are. Instead of Barnet Homes spending their reserves on propping up a failed One Barnet project, they should use this money to try and prevent Barnet residents and their families from being moved out of the borough.

Last year the Council made a commitment in their own business case which said if the project failed they would bring it back in house.

Please help  

1. Sign the Your Choice Care Workers Campaign petition which is on Barnet Council website

http://petitions.barnet.gov.uk/YourChoiceBack/

2. Send messages of support to Your Choice Care Workers Campaign to contactus@barnetunison.org.uk

3. Join the Your Choice Care Workers on BarnetSpring march on Saturday 23, 11am Finchley Central Tube

Links

Castlebeck care homes go into administration following abuse scandal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21674695

Southern Cross set to shut down and stop running homes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14102750

Lessons from the Francis Inquiry

http://ning.it/15erEcp

 

UNISON report on staff consultation Flower Lane for Your Choice Barnet staff 13.3.13

Brief report of staff consultation meeting held at Flower Lane for Your Choice Barnet staff 13.3.13

It’s fair to say the meeting was fiery as staff expressed their anger freely.

The financial problem for Your Choice Barnet is one of cashflow as they will no longer receive the block contract but receive payments in arrears reflecting the change to one where individual services are invoiced. This cashflow problem equates to £1million.

In addition there is a deficit of £1million as LBB will pay service users only a flat rate irrespective of whether the care they need is at night or at the weekend. Also a market rate will apply. It is also the case that YCB has been providing more service to the service user than is reflected in their care plan and therefore leaving a shortfall.

An obvious question was immediately that BH knew the payment arrangements would change before going into the LATC with YCB and so why did they not immediately see the finances for YCB would be compromised?

The response was that at the point of creation of the LATC Barnet Homes did not know the volumes they were taking over.

We pointed out that the Business Case had been very confident about being able to make surpluses, knowing LBB was talking about paying market rates. What has changed?

Ans: The Business case was based on assumptions

In the Business Case of May 2011 much had been made of the freedom for the LATC to step outside SLA’s and for example purchase its own IT equipment. Yet we are now in a situation where LBB is insisting YCB stays with LBB for its IT, knowing this is going to Capita. Is this not the case of a not-for-profit organisation being used to prop up the business case for a contract to be successful with a for-profit organisation?

Ans: in a procurement exercise YCB had established they could find a cheaper IT provider. LBB stepped in to say that IT should remain as provided through the Council (Capita) and YCB need only pay the amount they had established through their procurement exercise. LBB will make up the difference.

In other words LBB is prepared to subsidise a service when it means securing a contract for Capita, but this would then seem to be at the cost of staff working for YCB!

In other parts staff criticised the move to reduce night time care on the basis that there was little need. The staff providing that service contradicted the view in the report that they are not needed as they could point to many examples where they had been needed.

More later….

1 158 159 160 161 162 253