Once again, the Public and Commercial Union have sent me a ballot paper.
On this occasion, it is over the issue of the DWP entering initial negotiations to make people compulsory redundant.
These affected 46 Administrative Assistants in a variety of locations across the DWP.
In a previous job, I line managed at various times, between 3-6 people at this grade level. They had to barcode and send to Capita various items of post and forms for different benefits. It so happened that at another two locations, there were some "surplus" staff awaiting redeployment within the department and every so often, we sent them work. Boxes of post from claimants.
I do know more than one of my colleagues worked hard with them to identify suitable redeployment opportunities. But failing to get a promotion and, what is boiled down to, is a can't or won't attitude to moving to where the work is. A 30 minute trip on the train.
Such a person claiming JSA is expected to travel within 90 minutes of their home using any means of transport appropriate.
Much as I have a sympathy for anyone under threat of redundancy, sometimes you reach a position where you cannot do anymore for that person to help them redeploy within the department.
I can see both sides. There is plenty of work for them to do. But, they do need to be where the work is.
I will not be voting in the ballot this time round. I find the issues are far more nuanced then the union with their seventies concept of Industrial Muscle might like it to be.
Showing posts with label strike. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strike. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 December 2012
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Tales of the Unexpected - Home Office Strike Called Off!!
Regular Readers will remember my blog post from last week - Crying Wolf? It's Another Civil Service Strike!
I had argued that the demands were so wide-ranging it was unlikely that the government would make sufficient concessions that would satisfy a ideological driven union.
To my delight and surprise, the Home Office strike has been called off at such short notice and I had started to plan a piece following up how the tanker dispute shows the way forward for a modern industrial dispute. But this time, using the Home Office as the example.
Then, this was swiftly followed by Damien Green (he must have been delighted!) saying that he did not recognise the 1,100 new jobs that was suggested by PCS as the explanation for the strike being called off.
To find out what is really going on, I found that the PCS have helpfully linked to the job advert on their website. (PDF reader needed.)
The small print says:
"Applications from surplus staff applying on level transfer will be considered before applications from other level transfer staff/promotion staff and in line with the usual process.
Redeployees applying on promotion will not be given priority status."
What this is saying is that these jobs are at the moment only open to existing Civil Servants at risk of redundancy within the Home Office and elsewhere in the Civil Service.
These are not new jobs.
This advert was available from the 20 July 2012, two days after the strike was called.
This same advert is the reason why the strike was called off at the eleventh hour on the 25 July 2012
If these jobs were to satisfy the "win condition" I alluded to in my post of the 19 July, then the strike should have been called off on the 20 July.
The PCS stared down the barrel of a PR disaster of their own making and blinked first. Despite all the desperate efforts to spin the other way, of which Malcolm Tucker would be proud, I simply do not believe the PCS version of events.
I had argued that the demands were so wide-ranging it was unlikely that the government would make sufficient concessions that would satisfy a ideological driven union.
To my delight and surprise, the Home Office strike has been called off at such short notice and I had started to plan a piece following up how the tanker dispute shows the way forward for a modern industrial dispute. But this time, using the Home Office as the example.
Then, this was swiftly followed by Damien Green (he must have been delighted!) saying that he did not recognise the 1,100 new jobs that was suggested by PCS as the explanation for the strike being called off.
To find out what is really going on, I found that the PCS have helpfully linked to the job advert on their website. (PDF reader needed.)
The small print says:
"Applications from surplus staff applying on level transfer will be considered before applications from other level transfer staff/promotion staff and in line with the usual process.
Redeployees applying on promotion will not be given priority status."
What this is saying is that these jobs are at the moment only open to existing Civil Servants at risk of redundancy within the Home Office and elsewhere in the Civil Service.
These are not new jobs.
This advert was available from the 20 July 2012, two days after the strike was called.
This same advert is the reason why the strike was called off at the eleventh hour on the 25 July 2012
If these jobs were to satisfy the "win condition" I alluded to in my post of the 19 July, then the strike should have been called off on the 20 July.
The PCS stared down the barrel of a PR disaster of their own making and blinked first. Despite all the desperate efforts to spin the other way, of which Malcolm Tucker would be proud, I simply do not believe the PCS version of events.
Thursday, 19 July 2012
Crying Wolf? Its Another Civil Service Strike!
The Home Office Group of the PCS has announced a one day strike just the day before the opening ceremony of the Olympics. The Home Office includes Identity and Passport Services, The Criminal Records Bureau and the UK Border Agency (UKBA).
When a strike is called, there needs to be a clearly defined "win condition" - what it will take for the union to gain the concessions required to call off the strike and resolve the dispute and there needs to be sympathy from the public at large to show that the union are on the right side of the argument.
Lets look at the first issue - The article from the BBC states: "The PCS is in dispute with the Home Office on several issues, including plans to cut 8,500 jobs and the threat of compulsory redundancies in the passport office in Newport, South Wales.
There are also disagreements over pay rises capped at 1% following a two-year wage freeze, privatisation of services, and alleged victimisation of union reps."
What is clear is that the dispute is so broad, there is no "win condition". The first time I went on strike, it was over the issue of safety screens within the Social Security Offices. The "win" was obvious - to get the DWP to agree that some security screen were necessary and needed in customer facing offices. And the management did agree which led to the strike being called off.
For the sake of argument, lets say that the government withdraw their threat of compulsory redundancy in Newport. OK, a concession for the union, but they will argue that the government has not gone far enough to meet their demands. So, what would it take? Is it even achievable? Or have the PCS decided to go on strike irregardless of whether some or any concessions be agreed between now and then?
With the UKBA being involved, it will only go one of two ways at places like Heathrow, Gatwick and Dover.
Long queues to get through Immigration and sympathy draining away with each minute in the queue. Or a well-rehearsed contingency arrangement in place that will mean no disruption at all and the PCS singularly and completely failing in their aim of making a statement.
Ironically, the PCS regularly accuse the Coalition Government of ideologically driven cuts. And yet the PCS leadership are just as ideological and dogmatic in the way they conduct their industrial relations. Ultimately, it is counter-productive, the Government will not back down, it will further entrench its negotiation position and they will not want to be blackmailed by a union in the same way Heath was.
The 20% turnout will only strengthen the hand of those who regularly call for a minimum turnout in a strike ballot making a strike even less likely in future perhaps when it might be needed more than ever. The story of the boy who cried Wolf comes to mind.
When a strike is called, there needs to be a clearly defined "win condition" - what it will take for the union to gain the concessions required to call off the strike and resolve the dispute and there needs to be sympathy from the public at large to show that the union are on the right side of the argument.
Lets look at the first issue - The article from the BBC states: "The PCS is in dispute with the Home Office on several issues, including plans to cut 8,500 jobs and the threat of compulsory redundancies in the passport office in Newport, South Wales.
There are also disagreements over pay rises capped at 1% following a two-year wage freeze, privatisation of services, and alleged victimisation of union reps."
What is clear is that the dispute is so broad, there is no "win condition". The first time I went on strike, it was over the issue of safety screens within the Social Security Offices. The "win" was obvious - to get the DWP to agree that some security screen were necessary and needed in customer facing offices. And the management did agree which led to the strike being called off.
For the sake of argument, lets say that the government withdraw their threat of compulsory redundancy in Newport. OK, a concession for the union, but they will argue that the government has not gone far enough to meet their demands. So, what would it take? Is it even achievable? Or have the PCS decided to go on strike irregardless of whether some or any concessions be agreed between now and then?
With the UKBA being involved, it will only go one of two ways at places like Heathrow, Gatwick and Dover.
Long queues to get through Immigration and sympathy draining away with each minute in the queue. Or a well-rehearsed contingency arrangement in place that will mean no disruption at all and the PCS singularly and completely failing in their aim of making a statement.
Ironically, the PCS regularly accuse the Coalition Government of ideologically driven cuts. And yet the PCS leadership are just as ideological and dogmatic in the way they conduct their industrial relations. Ultimately, it is counter-productive, the Government will not back down, it will further entrench its negotiation position and they will not want to be blackmailed by a union in the same way Heath was.
The 20% turnout will only strengthen the hand of those who regularly call for a minimum turnout in a strike ballot making a strike even less likely in future perhaps when it might be needed more than ever. The story of the boy who cried Wolf comes to mind.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Doctor on Strike
The Independent gave a pithy headline to the issue of public sector pensions for Doctors today.
Lets be clear at the outset. Doctors have every right to ballot on Industrial Action and Striking and they have every right to take part in any action that is called by the union they belong to. They are already sensitive to the issue of "abandoning patients" but they are only withdrawing non-urgent care. This is a world of difference from standing outside surgery or hospitals round the brazier. This attitude is similar to how the Fire Brigades Union conducts their disputes and even they are usually replaced with Green Goddesses and the Army. I am sure that pulling in a few Army medics just in case is not beyond the wit of the government. But crucially, the lie about the unsustainability of public sector pensions have been nailed. There is a £2bn surplus in the pension scheme which is not to sneezed at.
The government were quick as always to bleat about lack of a mandate (which makes the position of many councillors elected just as dubious) and that the public would not understand their position. The government need to change the record and look into why unions that have historically been slow to anger and slow to take action have suddenly had an outbreak of militancy. The doctors taking action for the first time since 1975. Prospect and National Association of Head Teachers taking part in N30 last year to name but a few.
But I can't get over this naggy feeling about this action from the Doctors.
Reading about the strike from 1975, it appears it happened as a result of being asked to withdraw from private practise and has given the casual observer born long after the event the impression that the BMA is a deeply conservative self-interested organisation only looking out for themselves.
With the Doctors now being amongst the best paid in the public sector and having the added bonus of a pension scheme that pays anywhere from £53,000 to £63,000 per year, it is instructive that the equivalent in the private sector would require a pot of at least £1 million pounds. When I think about the average public sector pension being anywhere from £4-8,000 depending on your source, it has the unfortunately perception of being greedy rather than being a necessary course of action.
Lets be clear at the outset. Doctors have every right to ballot on Industrial Action and Striking and they have every right to take part in any action that is called by the union they belong to. They are already sensitive to the issue of "abandoning patients" but they are only withdrawing non-urgent care. This is a world of difference from standing outside surgery or hospitals round the brazier. This attitude is similar to how the Fire Brigades Union conducts their disputes and even they are usually replaced with Green Goddesses and the Army. I am sure that pulling in a few Army medics just in case is not beyond the wit of the government. But crucially, the lie about the unsustainability of public sector pensions have been nailed. There is a £2bn surplus in the pension scheme which is not to sneezed at.
The government were quick as always to bleat about lack of a mandate (which makes the position of many councillors elected just as dubious) and that the public would not understand their position. The government need to change the record and look into why unions that have historically been slow to anger and slow to take action have suddenly had an outbreak of militancy. The doctors taking action for the first time since 1975. Prospect and National Association of Head Teachers taking part in N30 last year to name but a few.
But I can't get over this naggy feeling about this action from the Doctors.
Reading about the strike from 1975, it appears it happened as a result of being asked to withdraw from private practise and has given the casual observer born long after the event the impression that the BMA is a deeply conservative self-interested organisation only looking out for themselves.
With the Doctors now being amongst the best paid in the public sector and having the added bonus of a pension scheme that pays anywhere from £53,000 to £63,000 per year, it is instructive that the equivalent in the private sector would require a pot of at least £1 million pounds. When I think about the average public sector pension being anywhere from £4-8,000 depending on your source, it has the unfortunately perception of being greedy rather than being a necessary course of action.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Industrial Disputes - A 21st Century Model
Good News as tanker drivers in the Unite union vote to accept the deal on their dispute over terms and conditions.
In stark contrast to the unyielding and unbending stance of both sides in the public sector pension row, there are lessons to learn from how the tanker drivers approached their dispute and the willingness of the employers to seek a resolution.
The easiest course of action was to call the union's bluff, allow strikes to go ahead and then utilise public anger over queues and petrol shortages to force agreement, imposed or otherwise.
Instead, both sides went down the hardest course of action. To sit together at ACAS and thrash out the issues, to collaboratively cobble together a final deal and persuade the workers to accept it.
Post Wapping and the Miners '84, it is no longer feasible to work through an industrial dispute within the context of a class struggle. More than any anti-trade union law Thatcher introduced, these two events emboldened the employer side making them willing to stare down the unions. This is very clear from Francis Maude's approach towards the pensions dispute and because of this, I cannot see a situation in which a Prime Minister in a position similar to Edward Heath would countenance going to the country over an industrial dispute like he did in 1974.
Instead, these days, industrial disputes are, and should be resolved by negotiation first and working towards the best deal available. This does mean compromise and it really is not a dirty word.
However, it is right that strike action (or the threat of) can and should be used. Changing terms and conditions of a contract, whether written or implied is a breach of contract by the employer. The employees can therefore be justified in responding accordingly, they do not have another recourse in law.
But it has to be a last resort after all else failed. Its obvious that if the tanker drivers had in the end gone on strike, they would have done so if there was no alternative. Instead, we had a grown-up conversation, a grown-up deal and a grown-up resolution to the dispute.
Such a shame that this approach completely by-passed the collective wisdom of Francis Maude and the PCS.
In stark contrast to the unyielding and unbending stance of both sides in the public sector pension row, there are lessons to learn from how the tanker drivers approached their dispute and the willingness of the employers to seek a resolution.
The easiest course of action was to call the union's bluff, allow strikes to go ahead and then utilise public anger over queues and petrol shortages to force agreement, imposed or otherwise.
Instead, both sides went down the hardest course of action. To sit together at ACAS and thrash out the issues, to collaboratively cobble together a final deal and persuade the workers to accept it.
Post Wapping and the Miners '84, it is no longer feasible to work through an industrial dispute within the context of a class struggle. More than any anti-trade union law Thatcher introduced, these two events emboldened the employer side making them willing to stare down the unions. This is very clear from Francis Maude's approach towards the pensions dispute and because of this, I cannot see a situation in which a Prime Minister in a position similar to Edward Heath would countenance going to the country over an industrial dispute like he did in 1974.
Instead, these days, industrial disputes are, and should be resolved by negotiation first and working towards the best deal available. This does mean compromise and it really is not a dirty word.
However, it is right that strike action (or the threat of) can and should be used. Changing terms and conditions of a contract, whether written or implied is a breach of contract by the employer. The employees can therefore be justified in responding accordingly, they do not have another recourse in law.
But it has to be a last resort after all else failed. Its obvious that if the tanker drivers had in the end gone on strike, they would have done so if there was no alternative. Instead, we had a grown-up conversation, a grown-up deal and a grown-up resolution to the dispute.
Such a shame that this approach completely by-passed the collective wisdom of Francis Maude and the PCS.
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Link: Civil Service Strike - The Follow Up.
Today, I had a piece published over on the Lib Democrat Voice blog. You can read the full piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)