MOD spends £500m on "advisers"

The Ministry of Defence has spent more than £500 million on lawyers and consultants while cutting thousands of troops and civil servants.

The amount spent by the MOD on 'External Assistance' - management consultants, lawyers and Information Technology experts - has doubled over the past two years from £19 million to £44.6 million.

We understand that some consultants are being paid as much as £4,000 a day to do work that was previously undertaken by civil servants.

As much as £455 million has been spent on Framework Agreements for Technical Supports (FATS) since 2011 which must please the 331 approved firms providing services to the department.

We believe that successive defence reviews have been based on cutting the defence budget instead of the demands of the UK's foreign policy and defence need. We also believe that the continuing attacks on civil servants and public services are politically driven by the ConDem government.

Cuts that have no strategy other than to remove jobs and capability is leaving the MOD with shortages in manpower, technical skills, capability and flexibility.

It is unsurprising that a recent Freedom of Information request has revealed these figures. What is surprising is that taxpayers money is being wasted by politicians with little vision who, after being told again and again that civil servants are one of the most cost effective ways of supporting defence capability, continue to ignore it because of political dogma.

The MOD remains the loser as defence cuts cost capability. The winners, consultants and contractors who's extortionate costs are being funded by the taxpayer.

Fair Deal in Defence update 15 - Pay and bonus proposals 2013 negotiations continue

As we reported in Fair Deal Update 14, the department has made a formal offer of 1% on all pay spines (including at the maxima) for all staff, except for those on restoring efficiency.

Our union has held a number of negotiating meetings with the department to improve this offer and address the issues detailed in our pay claim for 2013.

Whilst we have received some assurances on a number of these issues, we are likely to reject the department’s pay offer, as it comes nowhere near meeting the central demands of a 5% (or £1,200) increase, the return of pay progression and a fair bonus distribution.

However we have now been advised that changes to the departmental pay system mean that any changes to salaries that are not agreed for payment by August 2013 may be delayed until February 2014.

Whilst we question the wisdom of programming changes during pay negotiations, we are also aware that members have suffered further cuts to take home pay this year, through the latest round of pension contribution increases and the continuing impact of inflation. We therefore believe it would be unacceptable for staff to be denied any salary uplift until 2014 and the non-industrial unions have therefore agreed to not object to the department paying the proposed 1% salary uplift, on a without prejudice basis, while negotiations continue.

Bonus proposals – there may be trouble ahead

The department has proposed that bonuses would be paid to a maximum of 25% of staff - identified as those receiving a box 5 performance marking.

We have made clear to the department that their own equal pay audit of the bonus scheme in 2012 showed statistically significant discrimination in the award of bonuses, with fewer staff with almost any protected characteristics receiving enhanced awards than their comparator colleagues, as well as a distinct bias towards higher grades.

As the system is broadly unchanged for 2013, we predict similar discriminatory outcomes. Indeed initial figures indicate significant differences in the ratio of box 5 awards between grades, with B1s between five and three times more likely to receive a box 5 than E2s.

We are awaiting more detailed figures and analysis, before deciding how to address this issue. In the meantime, members who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their performance report should consult their local PCS representative for advice.

Attacks on terms and conditions resume

We have now had an initial meeting with the department to address their proposed cuts to terms and conditions (annual leave, occupational sick pay, London hours of work, mobility and probation - detailed in Fair Deal update 14) for new starters and promotees.

Our union has made clear that we will oppose these cuts, which will damage morale still further and also lead to major recruitment, retention and staff development problems.

Action on performance management

A significant number of members have notified us that they are taking part in our protest against the imposed performance management changes. If you have not yet done so, there is still time. Contact your local PCS rep for actions to take in support of our campaign.

These actions are designed to safeguard our rights to object to the process and protect our interests should we find ourselves in the bottom 5%. It is clear from current performance statistics that a significant number of currently satisfactory performers will be force-marked into the bottom 5% to meet the department’s arbitrary quota.

Further guidance on the performance management system is being produced.

Conclusion

The UK is the only G20 country in which wages fell in 2010, 2011 and 2012. It is not a coincidence that public sector pay in the UK was frozen at this time and we now face a maximum 1% rise in each of the coming three years. We have also seen detriments to our pensions and attack after attack on our terms and conditions. Our living standards have therefore fallen significantly and will fall further if our employer gets their way.

In the Ministry of Defence we have seen over 26,000 civilians leave the department since 2010 resulting in those who are left covering more and more gaps as time passes – all of this for less take home pay at the end of every month. Our jobs are less secure and our prospects have been damaged, as our employer seeks to deliver their cuts agenda.

Our union wants a Fair Deal in Defence for every MoD employee. We want our department to once again be a place where members are proud to work and proud to say they do their bit supporting our military colleagues.
We have tried to engage senior MoD management to address our legitimate and growing concerns, so far without success. However until they sit down to talk with us and agree to work constructively to find solutions, morale will continue to fall and staff anger will increase.

Our campaign of industrial action, through the overtime ban and withdrawal of goodwill, continues and we will be developing our strategy to deliver a Fair Deal in Defence over the summer. If you have any ideas that could help us develop our thinking, please get in touch.

Performance reward or Institutionalised discrimination?

Since the introduction of performance awards (bonus payments) our union has argued that the use of non-consolidated performance awards is divisive, discriminatory and that the money set aside for payment (2.7% of the civilian pay bill) should be re-consolidated into basic pay.

The Ministry of Defence has recently issued its audit of performance management pay covering the financial year 2011 – 2012. Analysis of this report, our union believes, confirms that the Ministry of Defence operates a discriminatory system, as it demonstrates a consistently worsening position since the introduction of the current bonus scheme.

The DASA report highlighted the percentages of enhanced awards received, distributed by TLB, grade, length of service, Government Office Region, and diversity groups (gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and age) and showed statistically significant differences: 

 

• By TLB. Of the non-industrial staff who received an award, the percentage who received enhanced awards ranged from 8% for DE&S staff to 29% for Air Command. When tested, there was a statistically significant difference between the percentages of enhanced awards amongst the various TLBs.
• By Grade Analysis. Of those who received an award, band B1s received the highest proportion of enhanced awards (21%) with E2s receiving the lowest proportion (10%). For staff awarded an enhanced award the differences between the allocation among grades were found to be statistically significant.
• Gender. Of those who received an award, females received a higher percentage of enhanced awards than their male colleagues. When tested, the differences for were found to be statistically significant.
• Ethnicity. Of those staff who received an award, proportionally fewer self-declared black and minority ethnic (BME) personnel received enhanced awards than their colleagues. When tested, the differences across all the groups that declared their ethnicity were found to be statistically significant.
• Disability. Of those who received an award, a lower percentage of staff with a self-declared disability received enhanced awards than their non-disabled colleagues.
• Sexual Orientation. Of those who received an award, lesbian, gay and bisexual staff received a lower percentage of enhanced awards than staff who declared themselves as heterosexual. When tested, the differences across all those groups who declared their sexual orientation were found to be statistically significant.
• Age. Of those who received an award, staff aged over 60 had the highest proportion of enhanced awards with staff under 30 having the lowest percentages. When tested, the differences between age groups for enhanced awards were statistically significant.
• Region. Of those who received an award, staff in Eastern and East Midlands had the highest proportion of enhanced awards (both 24%) with the North West (6%) and the South West (10%) having the lowest. When tested, the differences across all the Government Office regions were found to be statistically significant.
• Length of Service in the MoD. Of those who received an award, staff with less than 25 years service had higher proportions of enhanced awards than staff with over 25 years service. When tested, the differences between LOS groups for enhanced awards were found to be statistically significant.

The report only tested differences between those receiving a basic award and those receiving an enhanced award. We have no doubt that if the analysis had been extended to include those who did not receive an award at all it would show similar discrimination had occurred.

Our union understands that in recent years very few middle management (and none at B1 or B2) have been subject to restoring efficiency for inefficiency procedures and therefore all have been performing satisfactorily and thus have received at least some award. Under the new imposed performance management arrangements, every grade will have to find a bottom 5%, even if all at that grade are performing satisfactorily or better.

Given that the DASA audits have shown a growing trend of discriminatory award patterns over a number of years, our union believes that this is sufficient evidence to conclude that the MoD is running a discriminatory performance award system that no modern employer would countenance.

Why should this bother me?

The department has imposed their new performance management system, designed to force mark 5% of its staff as ‘requiring improvement’ and under threat of dismissal whilst subjectively rewarding up to the top 25% of the workforce with a bonus, based on a reporting mechanism that has been consistently demonstrated to discriminate against large numbers of its own workforce.

Our union has repeatedly asked how the Ministry of Defence will fulfil its Public Sector equality duty, to promote equal treatment for all staff, when it continues to operate a discriminatory performance pay system and now plans to use that system to force mark staff into a potential dismissal situation.

A modern, progressive employer would try to find a solution to ensure that fair pay, reward and recognition underpins business delivery. Our union stands ready to assist in finding such a solution.

To date however, the Ministry of Defence has ignored our requests to alter this discriminatory system and continues to reiterate that it will only “monitor the situation”.

Our union has therefore written to the Permanent Secretary, Jon Thompson, to ask him to intervene in this issue and recognise the importance of delivering equality and fairness for all his staff.

If this situation is not addressed, then it is clear in our view that:

• There will be little consistency between TLB’s and, where there is a heavily military line management, greater discrimination against protected groups will occur.
• Higher pay bands such as band B and C will receive the highest proportion of awards with pay band E receiving the lowest proportion.
• Proportionally fewer self-declared black and minority ethnic (BME) personnel will receive an award compared to their colleagues.
• A lower percentage of staff with a self-declared disability will receive an award compared to their non-disabled colleagues.
• Fewer lesbian, gay and bisexual staff will receive an award than staff who declared themselves as heterosexual and the likelihood of an award will be even less where the line management is military.
• There will be an age bias in the distribution of awards with younger members of staff receiving fewer bonuses than older members of staff.
• The distribution of awards will show a statistically significant geographical bias, with a clear north - south divide.
• Staff with more than 25 years service will receive fewer awards.

Our union will not stand idly by while the MoD continues to discriminate against civilian members of staff based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation or grade. Support our campaign against the imposition of the performance management system and support our union as it fights to oppose discrimination.

It is now time for change; it is now time to give all MoD staff a Fair Deal in Defence.