Regional Pay - Another threat

“Regional pay” threatens to be another blow to public sector workers working in defence, following a pay freeze, thousands of job losses and threats to pensions.

Regional or local pay is riddled with issues and these are compounded in defence where military units and bases are often in rural and remote areas where they are the main economic driver.

The assumption that public sector workers are paid more than private sector workers is flawed. Again we see political spin being applied detrimentally to public sector workers.

Shouldn't all jobs be subject to a fair days pay for a fair days work.

If the politicians bring in regional pay, will they apply it to themselves as public servants?

Politicians have not brought their "Platinum Plated" pensions scheme in line with the public sector pension schemes they are attacking!

The answer is a No then. One rule for politicians and another for the rest of us.

National executive agrees to build for April strike on pensions

The PCS national executive unanimously agreed today to continue to pursue a joint union campaign against the government's cuts to pensions, including a co-ordinated national strike in April.

PCS will work with other unions to build for further co-ordinated national industrial action aimed to take place before the end of April, following any decisions taken by the National Union of Teachers at its annual conference.

The union will write formally to the government to reject the latest 'final' offer, and seek urgent negotiations, and organise targeted protests at cabinet ministers' constituencies during the Easter parliamentary break with other unions, as well as wider lobbying of MPs.

The executive agreed to offer solidarity and practical support to teachers and lecturers in London who have announced they will be striking on 28 March and to redouble efforts towards co-ordinated national action in April. The decision means PCS members will not be taking part in the 28 March strike.

In a consultation ballot with members, 90.5% voted to reject the government's offer and 72.1% voted to support a programme of further action with other unions - the highest vote for action the union has ever had.

The union has consistently said that, because the cuts are being applied across the public sector, co-ordinated national action has been necessary to win concessions, and will be necessary in future by as many unions as possible.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: 

"Our overwhelming ballot result came in the face of continuing attacks from the government, and during a time when many people are suffering personal financial hardship.

While we remain committed to negotiating with ministers, they have so far refused to move from their plans to force civil and public servants to work longer and pay more for less in retirement.

We will be working with other unions to build for co-ordinated national action to successfully fight these cuts to pensions, as well as those to pay and jobs that this brutal government is inflicting on the public sector."

The Goose that lays the golden egg given to Serco as they are awarded Defence Business Service Contract

The MOD has today signed over the running of Defence Business Services (DBS) to Serco without addressing any of the concerns of staff represented by the Public and Commercial Service Union (PCS).

PCS has asked:

• Why award a contract to the value of £36M to undertake work that senior civil servants are competent to undertake when the current DBS civil service management have met every target that has been set. 
• Serco can now dictate MoD business output while the associated business risk remains with MoD. What assurance and governance is within the contract that will ensure this does not undermine defence needs?
• What assurance and governance arrangements are within the contract to enable a commercial management team to manage public funds when they are not accountable to the public purse, only to the contract they have been awarded and their shareholders?
• The contract award details that TUPE legislation does not apply. Under Regulation 3, there will be a TUPE transfer if an identifiable business or part of a business changes hands, or a particular service is contracted out, given to a different contractor, or brought in-house. What assurance do you have that this is correct when it is clear that the MoD is transferring the management of DBS to a private company?
• What assurance is there that the contract does not breach fair commercial contract practices as it enables Serco to outsource transactional work to themselves (as this is not precluded from the contract)?
• As Serco will have direct access to Defence Bills management information what assurance and governance is within the contract to stop Serco using sensitive defence contract cost information to undermine their competitors or the public purse value for money benchmark process in future contract awards?
• The contract award offers to save £71M at a cost of £36M with no hard change initiatives detailed by Serco. As DBS has already got hard wired savings over the life of the contract what assurance is there in the contract that MoD and the public purse will gain any Value for Money benefits?
• Bringing in Serco as the commercial management of DBS whose professional civil servants have achieved hard wired value for money savings year on year has undermined morale to such a point that business continuity is a significant risk. What assurances were given by the MoD in relation to business continuity?

We have had no answers to date.

Serco must be over the moon; they have a been awarded a contract where the risk remains with the MOD, they will have access to the Ministry of Defences' commercial, contract and bill payment data plus be able to propose future outsourcing of defence business where they will be able to bid for that work from a insider position.

The Goose that lays the golden egg has been given to Serco where there is a direct conflict of interest with the management and governance of public funds. 

Defence sector group - National consultative ballot: 650 chances to fight for your job and your pension

They are 650 MP’s in the House of Commons. Ultimately they are our employers as they form the government of the day. However through our democratic society, there are several ways we can influence their decision making.

The industrial action taken by PCS members and other public sector trade union members on 30 November 2011 has already forced the government back round the pensions negotiating table. Unfortunately, as yet those negotiations have not proven fruitful as government negotiators are at present refusing to budge on the key elements of working longer, paying more but getting less pension when you retire.

Voting YES YES in the national consultative ballot will not only strengthen our union negotiators position in any negotiations; it will also strengthen our position in the defence sector group as we campaign against the proposed 32,000 civilian job cuts and a raft of privatisation initiatives that would see approximately half of our civilian workforce working in future for profit orientated companies, and not for what gives best support to the front line.

Defence lobby of parliament – 20 March 2012

As well as voting YES YES in the national consultative ballot we would urge every member in our group to complete the e-action at this address http://www.pcs.org.uk/modaction and ask their own MP to attend our defence lobby of parliament on 20 March.

Because the Ministry of Defence is the UK’s largest landowner, PCS members in our department are in a unique position of working in every UK political constituency. We must therefore take this opportunity to lobby as many of the 650 MP’s in Westminster as we can.

We know that where MP’s get numerous requests on the same subject, they take the issue very seriously. Therefore as well as completing the e-action, can members please ask their work colleagues, friends and family to also complete the e-action.

  

Issues to discuss at the lobby of parliament

We are hoping to have upwards of 50 reps from defence sector branches at the lobby of parliament and they will be speaking to MP’s about the following –

• Pensions – Despite the government this week making their fourth ‘final’ offer, the key issues of working longer, paying more and getting less have not been altered. We will be telling MP’s the affect this will have on individuals and their careers.
• Job Cuts – VERS 1 saw 5,500 leave, but in the same period, another 10,000 simply had enough and left the MoD. The survivors will tell MP’s about the devastating affect this has not only on morale but also on our ability to give support to the front line.
• Privatisation – The recent DBS announcement also talked about future privatisation initiatives in DE and S and DIO. Profit based companies exist to satisfy shareholders and our reps will tell MP’s about their fears over terms and conditions being eroded by companies whose primary concern is the balance sheet not the front line.
• Civilianisation – Although there is now some recognition within the department that we must civilianise more, the recent defence select committee report was misguided in its comments. Our reps will tell MP’s that whilst we recognise the need for some military expertise and knowledge; if the emphasis is on value for money and delivering services, civilian workers can do this better.
• Tax justice – Our union has been pushing for several years now for the government to collect the “120 billion of tax that is evaded, avoided or not collected. Our reps will be asking MP’s why people earning £150,000 or more enjoy tax breaks worth more than the annual salaries of nearly eight million workers.

 Conclusion

If you have not already voted, please do so now and vote YES YES in the national consultative ballot.

This is the most important stage in the campaign. A YES YES vote will ensure we keep the pressure on an already discredited government. If we have to take more strike action a YES YES vote will also ensure more members take part in the strike day activities than in previous strikes.

The NEC will take a final decision on 19 March whether or not to call the strike on 28 March, taking into account the result of the consultative ballot and the decisions of other unions.

For the latest PCS defence sector news, please go to the following -

www.pcs.org.uk/mod

www.defencecutscost.blogspot.com

www.twitter.com/defencecutscost

PCS pay and pension calculator - How much is the government taking from you?

More than 300,000 people have already viewed the calculator and the new version breaks down exactly how much you stand to lose.

Lynne Arnison, 46, is a Job Centre Plus office performance team leader from North Yorkshire. Lynne currently earns £24,230 per year and has worked in the civil service for 26 years.

As a result of the government's plans, Lynne will:

• Pay £696 more per year and £61 more per month
• Lose £20,601 from her current pension
• Stand to lose a huge £42,158 from her pension if she works until she is 66

 

 http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/pensions/pensionscalculator.cfm#.T120k6pzJMo.twitter

Fourth 'final' pensions offer and still no proper negotiations

Commenting on what is now the fourth 'final offer' from the government on public sector pensions, PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said:

"Over more than a year, ministers have refused to budge from their entirely unnecessary and politically-motivated attempt to force public servants to pay more and work longer for a worse pension.

"They have consistently refused to listen to the genuine concerns of their staff and others, and have refused to negotiate on the key issues that brought two million people out on strike last November.

Ministers' obstinacy means we have this ludicrous charade of what is now our fourth 'final' offer, with previous ones being desperate attempts to avert strikes and a failed bid to bounce us into accepting an arbitrary deadline before Christmas.

We will continue to talk to other unions about planning further widespread co-ordinated industrial action and there is as much reason as ever for our members to vote in our consultation ballot to reject these spiteful cuts."

Is the DBS Serco contract unsound?

Defence Business Services Commercial Management Contract Awarded to Serco 1 March 2012

On the 29th February 2012 Serco announced through their advertisement to recruitment for a Service Delivery Manager within Defence Business Services (DBS) that they had been awarded the commercially sensitive contract to run the Ministry of Defences' Personnel, Pay, Finance, Security Vetting and Accounting organisation before any announcement had been made to Parliament, departmental trade unions or staff within DBS.

The Secretary of State for Defence announced that Serco had been awarded the DBS commercial contract after PCS had detailed that Serco were recruiting to a post that belonged to a government contract that had not been announced.

PCS has requested a number of meetings with the Secretary of State for Defence to represent our concerns; however, no meeting has been forthcoming to date.

As no meeting has been granted to address our concerns we have not has any assurance on following questions:

• Why award a contract to the value of £36M to undertake work that senior civil servants are competent to undertake when the current DBS civil service management have met every target that has been set. 
• Serco can now dictate MoD business output while the associated business risk remains with MoD. What assurance and governance is within the contract that will ensure this does not undermine defence needs?
• What assurance and governance arrangements are within the contract to enable a commercial management team to manage public funds when they are not accountable to the public purse, only to the contract they have been awarded and their shareholders?
• The contract award details that TUPE legislation does not apply. Under Regulation 3, there will be a TUPE transfer if an identifiable business or part of a business changes hands, or a particular service is contracted out, given to a different contractor, or brought in-house. What assurance do you have that this is correct when it is clear that the MoD is transferring the management of DBS to a private company?
• What assurance is there that the contract does not breach fair commercial contract practices as it enables Serco to outsource transactional work to themselves (as this is not precluded from the contract)?
• As Serco will have direct access to Defence Bills management information what assurance and governance is within the contract to stop Serco using sensitive defence contract cost information to undermine their competitors or the public purse value for money benchmark process in future contract awards?
• The contract award offers to save £71M at a cost of £36M with no hard change initiatives detailed by Serco. As DBS has already got hard wired savings over the life of the contract what assurance is there in the contract that MoD and the public purse will gain any Value for Money benefits?
• Bringing in Serco as the commercial management of DBS whose professional civil servants have achieved hard wired value for money savings year on year has undermined morale to such a point that business continuity is a significant risk. What assurances were given by the MoD in relation to business continuity? 
• Taking the above points into account, what assurance do you have that this contract will not bring the MoD into disrepute or see the MoD face a legal challenge from one of the other bidders in the tender process?

MOD Pays Consultants while Military and Civilian's loose their jobs

Defence chiefs have paid fatcat City consultants £7.2million while laying off thousands of soldiers since David Cameron came to power.

Tory donor Deloitte has been handed 16 lucrative Ministry of Defence contracts in the past two years.

The firm has given the Tories £700,000 since Mr Cameron became leader in 2005.

The revelation comes amid cuts which will see 11,000 servicemen and women made redundant and 32,000 civilian job cuts.

Serco awarded commercial management contract

Despite PCS objections since the start of the process last summer, Serco have been awarded the contract to provide the commercial management of DBS. Despite several delays in the tender process, it appears that the contract has been finally signed in haste after PCS discovered that Serco were recruiting via their own website for an Interim Service Delivery Manager for this contract before the contract was even signed.

PCS believes the tender process has been flawed from the start and whilst the minister may now have signed on the dotted line, there are still questions to be answered –

• Why award a contract to the value of £36M to undertake work that senior civil servants are competent to undertake?
• Why has this contract now been signed when it allows Serco to now dictate MoD business output while the associated business risk remains with MoD?
• Why are a commercial management team being allowed to manage public funds when they are not accountable to the public purse, only to the contract they have been awarded?
• Why has TUPE been written out for those senior managers posts that clearly continue under the commercial management such as the Chief Executives?
• We believe the contract breaches fair commercial contract practices as it enables Serco to outsource transactional work to themselves (as this is not precluded from the contract). Why was this not prevented from happening?
• Why when the DBS under Transformation detailed that it could produce PR12 savings that brought the organisation under control targets is a commercial management needed (DBS was going to achieve the departments savings wedge allocated to it)?
• Does the Transformation reductions sit within the £71M contract savings or is it in addition to the contract savings?
• Is the decision to bring in commercial management on a dubious contract in our opinion, confirmation that our members working in DBS are being impacted by a political decision based on the public sector should be moved into the private sector whatever the cost or impact?
• Though PCS have asked for a meeting with the Minister prior to any decision being made on the DBS commercial contract to put forward our concerns, no meeting was forthcoming. Why would the department not want to have a sensible and grown up conversation with its members of staff representatives when we and our members have valid concerns?

General secretary Mark Serwotka said: "It's outrageous that the first we knew that this contract had been awarded was when the company advertised to fill a post. This appears to confirm that this was a politically driven decision that does not take into account what is best for the department."