Short industrial reports

Submitted by cathy n on 25 August, 2008 - 7:29

CIVIL SERVICE JOB SECURITY

PCS members are currently being balloted on a job security agreement struck with the Civil Service. This agreement, called the protocols, is the result of long running union agitation over job security. Members should vote in favour, but be clear as to limitations and weaknesses.

The original union campaign was for a no compulsory redundancy guarantee; the protocols fall short of that. The guarantee would not have saved jobs; it just would have guaranteed that the jobs run down (which still continues) was achieved without overt compulsion. This agreement means that departments should consider offering an alternative job to those faced with compulsory redundancy (which is in ACAS guidance anyway).

The protocols place certain other obligations on Government departments but these are not enforceable by law; neither is there a specific disputes resolution mechanism put in place to handle problems. Weakness on the enforcement side means the union will have to vigorously police the protocols; there have already been many violations of their terms.

In many ways the protocols are more interesting for what they say about the PCS leadership. Of course there is the normal PCS spin on the deal — ­though compared to past “agreements” it has been relatively restrained. Then there is the ballot itself. The union agreed the deal earlier in the year and it came into effect in April, yet members are voting on a “done” deal in August. The ballot is in fact designed to head off criticisms of the agreement (“you lefties complain, but the members have voted for it!”)

At the end of one PCS circular it states (we paraphrase) that we have an agreement over pensions – job done, now we have one over jobs – job done, now to pay. This ticking of the boxes is a prevalent attitude among the leadership; prevalent, but completely wrong. Pensions are not settled; we accepted a defeat on new starters, and the Tories will reopen the whole can of worms if they get into office; the jobs rundown continues; the protocols do nothing to fundamentally address this problem. Members should vote for the agreement, but the union must continue to fight for a proper jobs agreement.

DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS

Not content with cutting 30,000 jobs in the past three years and spending on average £1 million per Jobcentre on refurbishment, DWP bosses have announced a further 12,000 job losses over the next three years and the closing of 200 offices. All this will waste £200 million pounds of taxpayers’ money — easily enough to have ensured every member of staff got an RPI proof pay rise this year.

Presumably to help achieve the job cuts, the latest wheeze DWP bosses have come up with is to import Human Resource Management techniques, known as Lean, from Japanese car production lines into benefit offices and jobcentres. Lean was first used by Toyota in the 1950s.

This is not new to the Civil Service. Lean was the subject of a lengthy dispute in the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and is still highly contentious

Lean in DWP involves employees identifying short cuts in business processes that can increase productivity and be used to cut jobs. Staff are required to state at a weekly 15 minute meeting to identify what can be cut. The idea is to cut out waste, defined as anything that doesn’t add value to the service provided. There are ground rules for the meetings. Staff are only allowed to deal with data and facts, not opinions.

Already one measure has lead to the loss of 109 executive officer posts and the downgrading of work.

The way PCS in the DWP Group is reacting is problematic. Whilst a recent meeting was held for representatives in the various Lean pilots across the department, non co-operation with the pilots was ruled out.

The PCS in DWP needs to urgently raise the consciousness of the workforce of what Lean is actually about — cutting jobs, deskilling the workforce and raising the rate of exploitation — if workers are to effectively oppose it. A useful report entitled ‘Lean and Job Design’, commissioned by PCS and written by Gregor Gall, draws on some of the lessons of the HMRC dispute and highlights the way forward. It stresses the importance of workplace organisation, the patient explaining to members of the impact of Lean and the importance of countering management propaganda. It is essential reading for trade unionists wishing to oppose Lean.

You can read the report at: http://pcs.live.poptech.coop/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=912688

DEFEND JOHN MCDERMOTT

Unison members working for East North East Homes Leeds (ENEHL) took a second day of strike action on 14 August in defence of their trade union convenor John McDermott and their right to effective trade union representation.

ENEHL is an arms length management organisation owned by Leeds City Council and the Leeds dispute centres on a new facilities agreement which massively restricts the ability of unions to represent workers. In particular the scheme restricts the activities of the convenor, reduces the time available for union duties, reduces the number of stewards that could be elected and introduces in effect a veto on meetings with board members to discuss disputes.

Unison members have been angered by this attack on their trade union and on their convenor. John is a popular, militant and very effective union organiser. He is also a member of Unison’s executive and Local Government Service Group.

Members in ENEHL voted overwhelmingly for strike action and the first day of action took place on 9 July. The management reaction to the strike was to ratchet up the dispute. On 14 July John was effectively suspended on a charge of disobeying management instructions. The relevant instruction was that he spend only one day per week on trade union duties as per the new imposed trade union facilities scheme. With grievances and disciplinary cases to deal with he continued to represent his members as required.

Unison’s position has rightly been that the way to resolve the dispute about facilities is to negotiate collectively not to bully and intimidate the convenor.

The second day of action on 14 August was well supported by workers in the organisation. The day before the strike saw talks between the union and management fail to reach a conclusion and further action is likely to be necessary.

It is important for the wider trade union movement to appreciate that this is not some localised and technical dispute.

In fact it has huge implications for all public sector unions. As a result of outsourcing and privatisation there is a plethora of arms-length organisations (ALMOs) throughout the public sector in local government, education and the civil service. The Leeds dispute indicates how this new landscape may be used to attack the trade union rights of public sector workers. If workers in ALMOs cannot be part of the wider agreements and facilities won across their sector, they will be left, at best, with the kind of rights which exist in relatively small private sector companies.

Far from rebuilding trade union strength outwards from the comparatively strong public sector to the much weaker private sector, we could see our rights and strength fatally weakened by the spread of the worst pro-business anti-union practices into public services.

That makes it very important to support the Unison members at East North East Leeds Homes and John McDermott in their dispute. Solidarity readers can do that in two ways.

1. Send messages of support to John at johntherhino@btinternet.com

2. E mail Steve Hunt, Chief Officer of EHEHL and urge him to withdraw the imposed scheme and negotiate a fair and equitable scheme that protects the rights of workers and their union representatives. steve.j.hunt@enehl.org.uk

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.