{"id":10649,"date":"2026-07-30T14:29:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T13:29:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.barnetunison.me.uk\/wp\/?p=10649"},"modified":"2026-07-30T14:29:28","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T13:29:28","slug":"a-national-care-service-must-start-with-the-workforce","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.barnetunison.me.uk\/wp\/2026\/07\/30\/a-national-care-service-must-start-with-the-workforce\/","title":{"rendered":"A National Care Service must start with the workforce"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

A National Care Service must start with the workforce<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rebecca Long-Bailey is right to argue that social care should become a universal public service, built on the same principle as the NHS: care according to need, not ability to pay.<\/p>\n

But after 31 years as a UNISON representative, and decades organising and representing care workers in Barnet, I believe something fundamental is still missing from the national debate.<\/p>\n

Politicians and the media repeatedly ask how much a National Care Service will cost and how it should be funded.<\/p>\n

Those are important questions, but they are not the only questions.<\/p>\n

We also need to ask who will provide the care, who will employ them, and on what pay, pensions and conditions.<\/p>\n

There is no National Care Service without a national care workforce.<\/p>\n

Three decades of outsourcing in Barnet<\/strong><\/p>\n

My first major involvement with care workers began in the late 1990s, when Barnet Council decided to outsource its residential care homes and day services.<\/p>\n

The case put forward was that outsourcing was needed to secure investment in new and improved buildings.<\/p>\n

Barnet UNISON opposed the proposal. We organised members and produced alternative reports challenging the argument that outsourcing was the only way to improve services.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the council was implementing the national Single Status agreement. Care workers were moved from spot salaries onto a career-grade structure intended to provide fairer and more consistent pay.<\/p>\n

The ink was barely dry on those new arrangements before the workers were told they were being outsourced.<\/p>\n

The staff transferred to the Fremantle Trust. A few years later, the employer moved to impose significantly worse contracts.<\/p>\n

Our members faced cuts to pay, sick pay and annual leave. Barnet UNISON members resisted through strike action, rallies, campaigning and meetings in Parliament.<\/p>\n

We fought hard, but the cuts were imposed.<\/p>\n

Much of the progress achieved through Single Status was undone. Skilled care workers delivering a public service were left with lower pay and weaker employment protections.<\/p>\n

That experience taught us an important lesson.<\/p>\n

Improvements negotiated through collective bargaining can be taken away when workers are transferred outside direct public employment.<\/p>\n

The outsourcing model failed workers and services<\/strong><\/p>\n

The care-home contract later became the subject of a major financial dispute between Barnet Council and Catalyst Housing, which had partnered with Fremantle in the contract.<\/p>\n

The dispute went to arbitration and resulted in substantial costs for the council.<\/p>\n

Barnet Council eventually withdrew from the remaining contract. The services and staff transferred to Your Choice Barnet, part of the council-owned Barnet Group.<\/p>\n

But the service did not return directly to the council.<\/p>\n

The workers remained employed at arm\u2019s length, outside council terms and conditions.<\/p>\n

The history continued with the closure of Apthorp Care Home.<\/p>\n

Residents had to leave their home and staff who had worked throughout the pandemic faced redundancy.<\/p>\n

The building was reported to require millions of pounds of repairs despite being relatively new.<\/p>\n

Once again, residents and workers carried the consequences of decisions made above them.<\/p>\n

Home care followed the same pattern<\/strong><\/p>\n

Barnet UNISON also fought to retain the council\u2019s in-house home-care service.<\/p>\n

That service was outsourced.<\/p>\n

Years later, part of the outsourced provision transferred to Aquaflo Care. The transfer ran into serious difficulties and the service was subsequently brought into The Barnet Group.<\/p>\n

Several years later, The Barnet Group announced plans to close its Enablement Home Care Service.<\/p>\n

The pattern has repeated itself throughout my time representing care workers:<\/p>\n

A public service is outsourced.<\/p>\n

The workforce is transferred.<\/p>\n

Pay, pensions and conditions become fragmented.<\/p>\n

The contract or provider runs into difficulty.<\/p>\n

The service may eventually return to a council-owned organisation, but the workers do not necessarily regain council employment, council conditions or access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.<\/p>\n

This is not history\u2014our members are living it now<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today, Barnet UNISON is involved in a major dispute involving care workers employed by Your Choice Barnet.<\/p>\n

These workers deliver essential adult social care services on behalf of Barnet Council.<\/p>\n

They supported vulnerable residents throughout COVID. They carried on working when the risks to themselves and their families were very real.<\/p>\n

Yet they remain part of a two-tier workforce.<\/p>\n

They do not have the same core pay, terms and pension arrangements as directly employed council staff.<\/p>\n

Our members are seeking fair pay, improved terms and conditions, a transparent pay structure and access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.<\/p>\n

They should not have to consider strike action to secure basic fairness from an organisation wholly owned by the council.<\/p>\n

This dispute exposes the gap between political promises about the future of social care and the reality experienced by the workforce.<\/p>\n

The Prime Minister can speak about creating a National Care Service, but those words will mean little to care workers who remain underpaid, excluded from decent pensions and treated as second-class public-service workers.<\/p>\n

A National Care Service cannot be credible if public bodies continue to deliver care through employment models that keep staff on inferior conditions.<\/p>\n

The employment model matters<\/strong><\/p>\n

A National Care Service cannot simply be a new funding stream poured into the existing fragmented care market.<\/p>\n

It cannot succeed while care remains dependent on outsourcing, low pay, insecure employment, inadequate sick pay and poor pension provision.<\/p>\n

Nor is it enough to transfer services into council-owned companies while keeping the workforce outside council employment standards.<\/p>\n

Public ownership must mean more than ownership on paper.<\/p>\n

There must be no compromise about the employment model for care.<\/p>\n

Care should be delivered as a public service through publicly accountable organisations.<\/p>\n

Care workers should have:<\/p>\n