UNISON respond to transfer of council workers to The Barnet Group Ltd Local Authority Trading Company: Privatising Adults and Housing Services

To view our full report click here

Questions to the Cabinet Resources Committee on the Local Authority Trading Company: Privatising Adults and Housing Services.
1) If the LATC fails to make the profits outlined but makes losses instead will the Council bring the services back in-house?
2) The council wholly owns the LATC. What is the logic of extracting a “profit” from payments it makes and which now incur tax liabilities?
3) How does the drive for the LATC deriving profits from Direct Payments influence the level at which Direct Payments are set?
4) P.25 6.32 “The LATC should charge full market value for the goods or services it provides to the Council given that its tax liability will be based on the market value for such goods/ services.” What effect could this have on the level of Direct Payments issued to service users?
5) In the table 3 p.23 6.15 many of the amounts remain constant over the period of 4 years – is this realistic?
6) If surpluses are liable to Corporation Tax, why is this not reflected in the table?
7) At p.43 2.4 shouldn’t the cumulative figure in the table for year 3 and year 4 be a loss and not a profit? If no, why not?
8) P.64 7.1 Why does this not reflect the profit after tax?
9) Where does the figure of £49 million come from for the BarnetGroup Ltd p.32
9.18 and why is this not reflected in the table p.64 at 7.1 for the Barnet Group?
10) P.16 4.3 “The BarnetGroup Ltd could offset any corporation tax liability with additional trading activities” – what are the additional trading activities?
11) Which services are at risk of coming under a decision to close by April 2013 if they are not viable (p.51 table under 3.17.4)?
12) In the table listing risks p.50-51 there are no strategic risks lists, such as market penetration – what is being done to come up with a list of such risks and
the planned mitigation?
13) Where is the cost reduction programme referred to in the box against “Your Choice” (p.51 table)?
14) P.67 table at 1.1.5 identifies clients with no SWIFT ID – what are the business risks resulting from this?
15) From where will the group and its subsidiaries obtain working capital and where is the cost of this working capital?
Governance and TUPE
16) p.52 3.19.5 makes mention of a Barnet Group Procurement Officer. Who employs this person if BarnetGroup Ltd has no employees?
17) Who is the employer the Chief Executive Tracey Lees?
18) Remuneration has become a national issue therefore, what is the Governance arrangement for determining the remuneration of the Chief Executive and Directors?
Consultation
19) There is mention of unit costs in day services equating to one half day rather than one day. What are the plans for consultation with service users and their
carers with respect to this?
20) There is mention of moving to opening 7 days/ week and extending the opening times. What are the plans for consultation with staff, service users and carers with respect to this?

 

Press Release: 400 UNISON members to take strike action on Barnet Independence Day 13 Sept

6 September 2011

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

On Tuesday 13 September up to 400 UNISON members working across the following services will be taking strike action

 

Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria; Parking Services, Revs & Bens,

 

The Trades Dispute concerns the identity of the employer. Barnet Council is promoting the One Barnet programme which is just a ‘remix version’ of the ‘contracting out’ ideology from the 1980’s. There are already several contracts out for consultation with the private sector. The value of the contracts (fast approaching almost £2 billion) has already attracted the big Private sector FAT CATS.

 

Up to 70% of the council workforce could be transferred to the Private sector in little more than 16 months time.

 

Dave Prentis general secretary message to Barnet UNISON.

“To the 400 UNISON members taking strike action: UNISON members across the country are standing shoulder to shoulder with you as you challenge this council – a council that refuses to listen to its workforce, a council that refuses to listen to logic or sense, a council now embarking on a reckless gamble

 

“Last week our union commissioned a report on the impact of outsourcing on the council’s pension scheme. The report gave a damning assessment of the serious financial risks to the pension scheme as a direct result of One Barnet programme.

 

Heather Wakefield UNISON’s head of local government,

‘The widescale privatisation at the heart of One Barnet should be placed under the severest scrutiny by Government, Barnet’s scrutiny committee and the people of Barnet themselves. The council’s failure to ensure procurement procedures and the obvious detrimental impact on the Local Government Pension Scheme of privatisation of local services are just two good reasons for challenging the path that Barnet has chosen. The third is the waste of public money involved in the procurement process through payments to consultants, procurement costs and payments to shareholders – money which should be invested in local people and local services.’

 

John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said

“The Council need to recognise that ‘political dogma’ also known as One Barnet programme cannot be allowed to continue to expose residents, services and staff to a high risk strategy and expect them to pick up the bill.

What we mean by ‘independence’

A recent article Greensquare Field – Planning to Outsource Planning posted on the local Barnet Eye Blog encapsulates conflict of interest’s issues:

“At the moment Barnet Council is in the middle of tendering to outsource a number of services, one of which is the planning service. In the running are a number of companies: Capita Symonds, Atkins, Jacobs and E C Harrison. The planning consultants who represent Higgins Homes plc, and have done through 2 planning applications, 2 planning appeals, a village green application and the draft LDF, work for Capita Symonds. If Capita win the tender, they will decide any future planning applications.”

 

As council services for Barnet as a place to live and work, our decisions must be 100% independent and free from any ‘conflict of interest’.

 

Barnet Alliance have recently published a newspaper their front page spells out the dangers of the One Barnet here

Barnet UNISON is asking for the One Barnet programme to be put on hold.

End.

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

 

Useful Links

 

1. Outsourcing Planning – local blog

http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/09/guest-blog-greensquare-field-planning.html

 

2. The potential impact of reduced active membership of the London borough of Barnet Pension Fund,’ (First Actuarial LLP)

To read summary click on link below

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/UNISON%20Barnett%20Council.31%20August%202011.SUMMARY.pdf

 

To read full report click on link below

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/UNISON%20Barnet%20Council%2031%20August%202011FINAL.pdf

 

3. Barnet Alliance 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_centre2.pdf

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

 

4. Life not so easy for council facing £1.5m outsource bill

http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=100493

 

5. The ‘shrinking by outsourcing’ models – implications for staff

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/Barnet_Briefing%20No%206.pdf

6. Directors Cut for Barnet Independence Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3826zTEyhoI

                

7. Obama direct message to striking UNISON members

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H4csb-Sgz4&feature=related

 

Branch Secretary writes to all Barnet Councillors about ££££.75Billion contract

Dear Councillors

Please find Barnet UNISON response to the New Support and Customer Services Organisation Business Case going to Cabinet Resources Committee on Wednesday 29 June

For those of you who prefer to read hard copies I have arranged for the report to be posted to you.

In all my time as Branch Secretary of Barnet UNISON I have endeavoured to seek engagement with councillors and officers in a non partisan manner it is unfortunate that our reports (and we have submitted over 30 such reports) are still being perceived as simply part of anti-outsourcing agenda, Whilst I can understand that view, I think for those who have read our reports they will find they are quite balanced and reflect the views of our growing membership.

It is now three years since the council embarked on the Future Shape programme and in that time it has changed direction a number of times; at least that is my view. In that time I have been assured by councillors and senior officers that mistakes of the past both local and national in relation to procurement and contract monitoring will not be repeated I have to report that they have become empty words.

It was not amusing or comfortable sitting in the Audit Committee two weeks ago and all the subsequent publicity that has brought to the Council. But I can only reflect that if the Council had been serious in its intentions to engage with UNISON two years ago when we submitted a 100 page draft corporate procurement policy you may never have heard the words ‘Metpro’.

In the hope that perhaps you may understand the level of concern we have over the One Barnet projects I would like to bring you attention to the now infamous Southwest One strategic partnership in Somerset which has been beset by controversy since the project was signed off by the then Lib Dem council. Since the contract was signed off there has been a change and it now a Conservative administration. The contract continue to be subject to criticism that it has not delivered anywhere near the savings first predicted; it is my understanding they have spent £58 million to make £6 million in savings. Following a Freedom of Information inquiry the Council decided to go public about the review they have carried out.

I would ask you to view this BBC southwest interview with the Ken Maddock Leader Somerset County Council it is only 2 mins long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKzSHxz14YI

It is clear to anyone watching this short clip that he is uncomfortable with the contract and is aware that it will cost an ‘awful lot of money to get out of the contract with IBM’. The idea that council has the expertise and skills to take on the big law firms like IBM, Capita SERCO and the rest is a very high risk strategy.

I know Somerset very well and have been following this story for several years. They had consultants that sold the savings concept, but where are they now?

As previously, please do not hesitate to contact me if you want to discuss aspects of our report.

To view report click here

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Standing up for staff and public services

Not for onward transmission in whole or part without permission

‘ Call to arms’ – Dave Prentis addresses Conference

In a speech to delegates at UNISON’s National Conference, the union’s General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said:

March 26th, what a day it was. We marched together, But this week we march on. Because this is our week, together not beaten. Here to experience the unique solidarity of our conference. To share, to learn, to inspire. And be inspired by the struggles of others. To show the world that we’re strong, determined, united.

They’ve declared war on our public services. With Tory donors, City firms, hedge funders back in the heart of government. Financiers like John Nash whose private equity firm, sovereign capital, buys and flogs care homes for the fun of it.

Conference, A year ago, we could have been beaten, lost our way. But in this past year we’ve grown our membership for the 17th year running. We’ve strengthened organising, a new army of organisers. Our branches, fighting back where they can.

Mike Tucker, in Southampton, John Burgess, in Barnet – their necks on the line. 40 branches in dispute, 34,000 members, balloted or taking action. Conference, this union salutes them all and what they are doing to save our members jobs and services.

And we are told that there is no alternative. And as long as they keep preaching that mantra that there is no alternative, I will state on every platform that there are alternatives. Clegg and Cameron could have the guts to go back to the banks, the spivs, the speculators, and tell them on our behalf, “you created this mess – you clear it up.” And I’ll say it again; “If there’s money to bail out the banks, if there’s money to protect their bonuses. If there’s money for war and replacing Trident, there’s money available for our local services and our NHS. If there has to be a pay freeze, make it for the bankers, get them to do more for less.

Full speech here and short video here

The Barnet 500 on the march

(above is Barnet resident)

I was proud to be able to take part in the first Barnet community march outside the borders of Barnet.

500 residents/trade unionists/from Barnet congregated outside the Savoy Hotel yesterday morning (site of Peasants Revolt 1381).

As we snaked through the capital, chants of “no to easy council no to easycouncil” provoked some bemused reactions. It was all good fun and the 500 all seemed to be inspired by marching with so many others. The banners and home made placards were fantastic as were some of the chanting.

It took us 5 and half hours to march from Embankment to  Hyde Park! I was exhausted when I reached Hyde Park (a note for me,we must find lighter banner poles for our banner).

It is disappointing to see the media focusing on the violence that took place last night. On the whole, it was a peaceful march,I never saw any violence, n fact it was almost a carnival atmosphere.

We will never know how many were there but it must have been close to a million. Feeder marches kept joining the main march, but even if we say it was as low as 500,000, the media by focussing on the behaviour of 0.04% let themselves down again.

The real story is the open attack on our public services and the resolve of communities everywhere to stand up to defend them.

Britain’s Secret Fat Cats who profit at our expense

Unusually I found myself at home and able to watch the Dispatches programme on Channel Four ‘Britain’s Secret Fat Cats’

For those who missed the programme I strongly suggest you watch it on catch up TV here

The thing is that the Public know so little about what has gone on and the serious amount of public money going into the coffers of private sector companies. Whilst Town Halls have become the target of community groups and angry residents and trade unions as a result of massive cuts to budgets, private sector companies are revealing massive profits for shareholders all paid for from public money from ME AND YOU!

Whilst I maybe the last to fight the corner for senior officer pay rates, at least this is subject to public scrutiny. If these companies are allowed to take over the rest of public services the audit trail will disappear altogether.  

I am positive that 99.9% of UNISON members would be shocked, angry and disgusted about how public money can hived off for private sector companies at a time when public services and local communities are being decimated.

A thought which has often crossed my mind, is how much longer will the community continue to put with this nonsense?

Almost every person I speak to either officially and unofficially admit the private sector are in for themselves and whatever happens they never lose, they don’t take the consequences when it all goes wrong.

Worrying was the admission in the programme that ‘privatisation is one way street.’ The collapse of Connaught’s was covered in tonight’s programme (with regards Norwich) and all the things the Norwich councillor claimed, were allegedly taking place in Barnet. Last summer as rumours circulated about the future financial viability of Connaught’s, Barnet UNISON lobbied Barnet Homes asking for the service to be brought back in-house before service collapsed. Needless to say our request was not taken up. Connaught’s went bust, now we have Lovell’s and they are not even waiting 6 months before looking to attack member’s terms and conditions.

No wonder the big private sector companies are getting excited with the prospect of even more lucrative contracts where they make massive profits at no risk to themselves. I saw an article in the Daily Mail; please note I am not a reader of the Daily Mail

“They are private companies but they are also the creation of the Government’s drive to outsource services. The lion’s share of their turnover – and of their executives’ enormous pay packages – comes from the public purse. But there is little in the way of public accountability.

These outsourcers already account for £79 billion of state expenditure every year, a figure which is set to grow if the Government fulfils its pledge to put nearly all state-run services out to contract.

A White Paper on the subject is due soon and the companies with their foot already in the door are delighted.

Over the past few weeks big outsourcing companies have given extraordinarily upbeat assessments of their position.

Paul Pindar, the chief executive of Capita – which does everything from collecting TV licence fees to placing social workers – is gleeful about the prospect of a public-spending squeeze.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365695/Revealed-The-new-public-service-Fat-Cats-theyre-immune-cuts.html#ixzz1Gc4gWD8e

Future Shape Project – now you see me now you don’t!

The Development & Public Health Services Future Shape Project formerly known as the Regulatory Services Bundle was published online here

Open the PDf and scroll down to page 20. Click on the table entitled Options Scoring Matrix. Copy and paste into a word document and ‘Hey Presto’ you can see the scoring.

I have never seen this sort of thing before, is it deliberate or is it a mistake and why should the details be secret?

The Trade Unions will be producing a report in response to the Options Appraisal which even from a cursory glance is full of contradictions assumptions without supporting evidence and quite insulting to staff. Just what were thinking when they wrote this “But it is also very clear that the services require a fresh injection of intellectual capital..”

Many of our members working in this area have let me know they have been hurt by this comment.

If I was a Barnet tax payer I would be pleased to see that almost all of these services are  high performing and low cost. It is difficult to see where the 25% cuts and the 20% profits for the private sector are going to come from……or is it?

Answers on a postcard.

My guess it has to be staffing or something more fundamental a cut back on what is provided.

It is not too late if you have any question on the content of this Options appraisal please send your comments to john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

£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.

Barnet Council Support Services & Adult Social Care staff ‘shock World Cup exit’

For the last two years the Trade Unions have been seeking to ensure that the Future Shape programme is:

1.     The process is open and transparent

2.     There is genuine trade union and staff engagement in delivering an in-house option for the Options Appraisal.

On Wednesday 30 June I attended the first of two ‘Away Days’ being provided for staff delivering services such as Finance, Legal Services, Customers Services, Libraries, Audit, IS, Procurement, Property Services, HR, Pay Roll, Pensions, Revs & Bens. 

The purpose of the meeting was to launch the creation of the New Support Services Future Shape project and to explain the reasons behind it.  The major staffing revelation was that the Council has decided not to include the Option of an in-house bid in the Options Appraisal process. Staff were told that they would be looking to the services of one of the big top 100 FTSE companies e.g. IBM, SERCO, MOUCHEL, CAPITA

Whilst this should not have come as such a shock to staff, hearing officially that the Council would not be giving them the opportunity to compete clearly upset some staff.

More important is on what basis an in-house bid has been ruled out of the Options Appraisals. No data has been produced or provided to the Trade Unions which could demonstrate the rationale for this decision. Last year I sought a meeting with the previous Leader of the Council because of fears that in spite of the Future Shape jargon, what we was seeing was old style privatisation with a 21st century makeover!

The meeting was useful and he provided the following quote:

“Once we get to look at the ‘who’ it may be that we partner with other organisations to provide a service in a different way.  Equally, it may be that we continue to provide a service because we are the only organisation that can achieve sufficiently high quality at sufficiently low cost.  This is an interpretation the Council does what only the Council can do. Clearly we have many excellent services and we would not embark on unnecessary disruption, but we would be in favour of change if we were confident it would bring significant improvements in quality and value for money”.

which we published last year for the full article click here

The question which remains unanswered for the 700 staff is

“How can the Council be ‘confident’ they can bring in a private sector partner to deliver better value and service improvements if they do not put up an in-house option in the Option Appraisal process?”

This would be a massive contract for the private sector and we along with other Councils have had our fingers burnt by the private sector. If we really have learnt lessons then “why are we ‘shunning’ in-house bids?”

Options Appraisal or Group Stage explained

One of the regular criticisms of Future Shape has been the jargon used. To try and help members understand the process I am using the analogy of World Cup group stage qualification process.

Service Delivery Options

Points scored

In-house team

 

Management Buy Out (MBO)

 

Barnet Homes

 

Local Authority Trading Company (LATC)

 

Joint Venture

 

Private Sector sale

 

Closure of Service

 

 Please note: We have asked the Council, but have had no response as to how many Options go through to the next stage where a Full Business case will be produced (Followers of the real World Cup will know that only the top two go through to the next stage).

MEMBER ALERT: If you do not progress to the next stage you are out. If the in-house option is discarded at this stage staff will be facing the prospect of being transferred out of the Council.

To help understand the process and implications it is often best to see a live example.

Below is a table showing the scores of an

Options Appraisal for the Future Shape Adult Social Care Provision.

Options

Strategic Fit for Transforming Social Care

Deliverability

Acceptability

VFM

Totals

Customer

Council

Staff

Transfer to Barnet Homes

5

5

4

4

3

4

25

LATC

4

4

3

4

3

3

21

Social Enterprise (start-up)

4

3

2

3

3

3

18

Remain In-House

2

3

4

2

3

1

19 15*

Tender/Trade Sale

4

2

2

3

1

2

14

Closure of Service

1

1

1

 

1

1

1

6

* Please note the table sent to the Trade Unions (see above) scored the in-house option 19 but as you can see the total is 15.

The Trade Unions have registered a ‘failure  to agree’ over the Options Appraisal process to council officers and have requested a Corporate Joint Negotiation Consultation Committee with councillors in order we can formally discuss our concerns. The example above has been shrouded in secrecy from the outset once the decision to exclude the Trade Unions was made. We have attempted to engage in the process. We have submitted 46 questions to the Adult Social Care Future Shape Project team and to date we have not had a response.

Welcome to the Barnet UNISON Twilight Zone

Welcome to the Barnet UNISON Twilight Zone.  You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension – a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas.

You’ve just crossed over into the Barnet UNISON Twilight Zone. 

 

The story of our branch being privatised has not happened. 

What is happening is our Council Services are at risk as a result of the recent 6.3 Billion budget cuts package and the likely level of cuts to funding to the Council as a result of the emergency budget on 22 June.

Fire Sale of the Public Sector?

It is important that the process of deciding what the Council does and doesn’t do in the future is open and transparent. Whilst Ministers ‘spin’ the myth that there are thousands of residents looking to set up co-ops/social enterprises etc to run services the reality is very different. Banks are not lending, and if they do, it is likely to be to multi-nationals e.g. IBM, Mouchel, Capita, BT.  In the knowledge that the Government are announcing their intention that the Public Sector debt must be cut back, the multi-nationals are circulating the public sector like sharks waiting for big public sector contracts to keep them afloat. It is the multi-nationals which will be looking to run our schools and it is easy to understand why. If they take over a school it means they take over the property (currently the schools are owned by us the public). Schools are one of the last massive public property assets and if the ‘Fire Sale’ goes ahead they could all be gone by the end of the Con-Dem first term in Government.

The Trade Unions have a responsibility to organise. But to organise in a way that they have never done for a long long time. In the past there has been too much rhetoric from General Secretary’s about joint working. History is clear that they have not delivered except for one day in the defence of the Pensions in the Public Sector. That was only one day. The fight over the survival of Public Services can only be won by working within our own communities.

1 28 29 30 31