In May 2014 We Own it highlighted growing anger against Serco, who were under investigation for defrauding the public purse, were still allowed to bid for public work.
A poll, carried out by Survation for campaign group We Own It, showed an increase in support for public services being run by government when companies are found guilty of mismanagement or defrauding taxpayers.
The new polling shows that outsourcing companies like Serco, Atos, Capita and G4S have the lowest levels of trust compared to other organisations like central government and the civil service.
The full article with links to the poll can be found here.
Monday, 30 May 2016
Sunday, 14 February 2016
Out Source Shared Services and Corporate Functions at any cost
On the 11th February 2016 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in a message to all staff working in Defence Business Services (the MODs corporate and personnel shared service function) announced that they ‘would bring in a contractor to act as our partner
in running DBS as a whole’ under a new contracting model called ‘Corporate Services Integration and
Innovation Provider’.
It would appear that the option of DBS being run by the public sector in the defence interest has been written off. Instead the MOD would rather throw good money after bad after not learning any lessons from its already well documented contracting failures.
The drive to privatise government shared services has resulted in bad decisions that have cost the public purse millions of pounds in undelivered savings, increased change costs and all at no risk to the private sector who continue to walk away with payments for outputs the civil service and public sector could have delivered, and delivered more.
Over the coming months we will be documenting evidence to back our position that corporate and shared service functions currently in the MOD should remain in the MOD if real value and security in delivering defence outputs is to be achieved.
It would appear that the option of DBS being run by the public sector in the defence interest has been written off. Instead the MOD would rather throw good money after bad after not learning any lessons from its already well documented contracting failures.
The drive to privatise government shared services has resulted in bad decisions that have cost the public purse millions of pounds in undelivered savings, increased change costs and all at no risk to the private sector who continue to walk away with payments for outputs the civil service and public sector could have delivered, and delivered more.
Over the coming months we will be documenting evidence to back our position that corporate and shared service functions currently in the MOD should remain in the MOD if real value and security in delivering defence outputs is to be achieved.
Sunday, 22 November 2015
Strategic review or cost cutting smoke and mirrors?
In The Guardian’s article ‘UK ministers turn on defence critics’ today, the political smoke and mirrors of Whitehall and the Ministry of Defence are clear.
Restating or re-announcing currently agreed troop deployment and engagement or procurement spending as part of the 2% GDP defence spend is nothing more than a ruse.
Our concerns were voiced by a speaker in a recent Lords debate on defence. “I deplore targets in this because I believe that it is only sensible to base defence spending on what the defence of the realm requires”, said the former general and chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham.
He added: “Without having a national security strategy on which an SDSR [strategic defence and security review] can be based you have no idea when you are going into these sums whether you have what is required.”
George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show said "Every public service has to make sure it is spending its money well."
We agree.
The development of Whole Force deployment in delivering our defence needs is based on utilising the right people with the right skills at the right time to deliver strategic, proiritised, value for money outputs. If you remove or diminish the capability and capacity of any of the military or civilian components you will increase the likelihood of deployment failure and delivery costs.
Year on year civil servants within the Ministry of Defence have supported the front line delivering value for money defence outputs and savings.
We would like to be confident that our politicians, senior civil servants and military colleagues in Whitehall and the Ministry of Defence understand this and have ‘battled’ to protect the value and flexibility of delivering our defence needs through the Whole Force model.
Somehow, we doubt it. The political smoke and mirrors of Whitehall politics currently obscures the sacrificial lamb, but sacrificial victims there will be.
Restating or re-announcing currently agreed troop deployment and engagement or procurement spending as part of the 2% GDP defence spend is nothing more than a ruse.
Our concerns were voiced by a speaker in a recent Lords debate on defence. “I deplore targets in this because I believe that it is only sensible to base defence spending on what the defence of the realm requires”, said the former general and chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham.
He added: “Without having a national security strategy on which an SDSR [strategic defence and security review] can be based you have no idea when you are going into these sums whether you have what is required.”
George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show said "Every public service has to make sure it is spending its money well."
We agree.
The development of Whole Force deployment in delivering our defence needs is based on utilising the right people with the right skills at the right time to deliver strategic, proiritised, value for money outputs. If you remove or diminish the capability and capacity of any of the military or civilian components you will increase the likelihood of deployment failure and delivery costs.
Year on year civil servants within the Ministry of Defence have supported the front line delivering value for money defence outputs and savings.
We would like to be confident that our politicians, senior civil servants and military colleagues in Whitehall and the Ministry of Defence understand this and have ‘battled’ to protect the value and flexibility of delivering our defence needs through the Whole Force model.
Somehow, we doubt it. The political smoke and mirrors of Whitehall politics currently obscures the sacrificial lamb, but sacrificial victims there will be.
Saturday, 21 November 2015
To Cut or not to Cut - that is the question?
As we anxiously await the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, the details of which will be announced on Monday 23rd November, our thoughts turn to the comments around the need to maintain a credible defence capability that is both effective and efficient.
The BBC News reported in June that:
The US defence secretary says he fears the UK could become "disengaged" if it makes further cuts to defence spending.
Ashton Carter told the BBC Britain had "always punched above its weight" and "it would be a great loss to the world if it now took action that would indicate disengagement".
The UK government said it was committed to meeting Nato's target of spending 2% of GDP on defence this financial year.
But it says future budgets will be determined in the next spending review.
Mr Carter's comments follow similar remarks earlier this year by the head of the US Army, General Raymond Odierno, who warned further cuts could see British units operating within US ranks, rather than divisions working alongside each other.
Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One
that 2% spending on defence "is not a target, it's a minimum" and any possibility that level may drop was "frankly staggering".
"The international situation is darkening and what we must avoid at all costs is having to spend the money later when a crisis has arisen, when by spending it now we might help deter people from provoking such crisis," he said.
The cross-party Defence Select Committee also argued recently that the rise of Islamic State and the increase in Russian aggression meant Britain's 2010 defence plans "no longer reflect the new threats to peace around the world".
Over recent years to value of civilian staff supporting and enabling our armed forced has been put forward as the cost effective Whole Force operating model.
Just yesterday in a leaked letter, one of the UK's most senior police officers voiced their concern that the cuts expected to the police forces in next week's Spending Review could "reduce very significantly" the UK's ability to respond to a Paris-style attack.
When the public believe we need resources in defence and security to safe guard them against acts of aggression, it will be interesting to see where politically both the government and senior civil servants have decided where the axe will fall in MOD.
Whatever cuts are announced in MOD they will result in a reduction in our defence capability and flexibility and people losing their jobs.
The BBC News reported in June that:
The US defence secretary says he fears the UK could become "disengaged" if it makes further cuts to defence spending.
Ashton Carter told the BBC Britain had "always punched above its weight" and "it would be a great loss to the world if it now took action that would indicate disengagement".
The UK government said it was committed to meeting Nato's target of spending 2% of GDP on defence this financial year.
But it says future budgets will be determined in the next spending review.
Mr Carter's comments follow similar remarks earlier this year by the head of the US Army, General Raymond Odierno, who warned further cuts could see British units operating within US ranks, rather than divisions working alongside each other.
Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One
that 2% spending on defence "is not a target, it's a minimum" and any possibility that level may drop was "frankly staggering".
"The international situation is darkening and what we must avoid at all costs is having to spend the money later when a crisis has arisen, when by spending it now we might help deter people from provoking such crisis," he said.
The cross-party Defence Select Committee also argued recently that the rise of Islamic State and the increase in Russian aggression meant Britain's 2010 defence plans "no longer reflect the new threats to peace around the world".
Over recent years to value of civilian staff supporting and enabling our armed forced has been put forward as the cost effective Whole Force operating model.
Just yesterday in a leaked letter, one of the UK's most senior police officers voiced their concern that the cuts expected to the police forces in next week's Spending Review could "reduce very significantly" the UK's ability to respond to a Paris-style attack.
When the public believe we need resources in defence and security to safe guard them against acts of aggression, it will be interesting to see where politically both the government and senior civil servants have decided where the axe will fall in MOD.
Whatever cuts are announced in MOD they will result in a reduction in our defence capability and flexibility and people losing their jobs.
Thursday, 5 February 2015
More Reasons to be a PCS member
Member benefits
Unions' legal challenge sees off punitive DfT sick policy
PCS and other civil service unions have successfully challenged plans to unilaterally impose a new 'seriously detrimental' sickness absence policy at the Department for Transport.
The High Court ruled on Tuesday (3 February) that the DfT broke employees’ contracts by failing to reach agreement with recognised unions PCS, Prospect and the FDA before changing its absence management procedures.
Our argument for these workers was that DfT staff terms and conditions and conditions of service are contractual and are described as such in their staff handbook. On that basis new sickness absence arrangements could not be imposed and needed to be subject to a collective agreement, which did not exist, or individual agreement to vary terms, which was not sought.
The 3 unions brought breach of contract claims against the DfT on behalf of members in the central department and its agencies in November 2014. The other organisations are the Highways Agency, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Vehicle Certification Agency and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.
Staff handbooks for the DfT and its agencies each set out employees’ terms and conditions, with individual agencies able to adopt different policies on matters such as leave, attendance and absence. However, the central DfT handbook says the contract of employment cannot be changed without agreement from either the employees or recognised unions.
Our argument for these workers was that DfT staff terms and conditions and conditions of service are contractual and are described as such in their staff handbook. On that basis new sickness absence arrangements could not be imposed and needed to be subject to a collective agreement, which did not exist, or individual agreement to vary terms, which was not sought.
The 3 unions brought breach of contract claims against the DfT on behalf of members in the central department and its agencies in November 2014. The other organisations are the Highways Agency, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Vehicle Certification Agency and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.
Staff handbooks for the DfT and its agencies each set out employees’ terms and conditions, with individual agencies able to adopt different policies on matters such as leave, attendance and absence. However, the central DfT handbook says the contract of employment cannot be changed without agreement from either the employees or recognised unions.
Changes imposed
In late 2011, the DfT wanted to introduce a uniform attendance management policy across the core department and all agencies, and walked away from talks with the unions. Despite this, in July 2012, the department imposed a new blanket attendance management procedure.
This introduced new formal and informal ‘trigger points’ for absence management:
This introduced new formal and informal ‘trigger points’ for absence management:
- Absences of 5 working days or three occasions in a rolling 12-month period would require mandatory informal action.
- Absences of 8 working days or four occasions in a rolling 12-month period would require a first written warning and then a final written warning, possibly leading to dismissal.
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka welcomed the ruling: "This case proves the importance of taking legal action to defend and preserve members' hard-fought terms and conditions in the face of management's illegal attempts to undermine them. The already over-stretched staff who bare the brunt of these vindictive policies are often those who suffer chronic illnesses and suffer anxiety because of the threat of disciplinary action."
PCS DfT president Paul Williams said: "This is in an overwhelming judgement in our favour, and a vindication of members' determination on this issue. We now urge the employer to get back in to proper talks with the unions on a non-detrimental sickness policy that covers all DfT agencies."
PCS DfT president Paul Williams said: "This is in an overwhelming judgement in our favour, and a vindication of members' determination on this issue. We now urge the employer to get back in to proper talks with the unions on a non-detrimental sickness policy that covers all DfT agencies."
Judge’s ruling
The judge, Mr Justice Globe, said the claimants should be granted declarations that the DfT and its agencies had breached their contracts of employment by not seeking consent from the recognised unions before unilaterally imposing the new sickness absence policy.
He said that new procedures were fundamentally different to the old ones and would be seriously detrimental to employees.
He cited two examples:
He said that new procedures were fundamentally different to the old ones and would be seriously detrimental to employees.
He cited two examples:
- a DSA employee who continued to work despite having been struck on the head by a defective door handle and knocked unconscious for a period.
- a DVLA employee who came into work with his nine-month old child because his wife was ill and he could not get help with childcare.
He ruled that:
- the old procedures and policy would continue to apply
- the new procedures could not vary contracts of employment and were not contractually binding
- by imposing the new terms, the DfTand its agencies had committed an anticipatory breach of contract
- if the new procedures are applied to individuals, the DfT and its agencies will commit a breach of contract.
Thursday, 29 January 2015
This government is using the state as a union buster
This government has launched an ideological attack on a TUC-affiliated union. This union-busting has so far gone unnoticed by much of the media, after all it’s not happening during a long national dispute or general strike. It’s behind the scenes, but its aim is to silence a prominent critic of austerity: PCS.
For decades the way in which civil service workers paid their union subs has been through automatic deduction from their pay packet. This scheme, known as check-off, survived unscathed from 18 years of Thatcher and Major, and 13 years of Blair and Brown.
But now, directed by Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, government departments and agencies have given us minimal notice that they will redraw the scheme. They say this is to save money – and why should the government subsidise a trade union’s membership collection? Many large businesses operate a similar scheme too, it costs little to administer and we offered to pay it. They refused.
They refused because this seemingly small technical change is an ideological attack, an attempt to break our union financially and weaken us industrially.
It means that we have to re-sign up three-quarters of our membership – over 150,000 people. They clearly thought this would break us – as it might a lesser union – but our reps and members have risen to the challenge. In just a few months we have signed up 73% of our membership in the Home Office – one of the first departments to announce it would end the scheme. But even that remarkable sign-up rate – one that no union has ever been asked to or managed to deliver – means we will lose thousands of members and thousands of pounds in revenue.
Over the coming months, more and more departments – from the DWP to HMRC – will withdraw check-off in an attempt to break our union. This has been accompanied by a document leaked to us from one department which showed senior management planning to “marginalise PCS”, slash the facility time of key reps, and support the setting up of a compliant staff association.
This is union-busting pure and simple, and fits with a pattern we have encountered in other civil service departments. And of course it fits with the Tories’ recent announcements about new balloting rules to limit democratic strike action. Being targeted is in some ways a badge of honour; we have been one of the leading voices communicating an alternative to austerity, and played a major role within the TUC in building co-ordinated action across the public sector – unafraid to take on Tory leaders in the media.
Their attack won’t silence or beat us. We have had to take some tough decisions, and have re-structured our union to respond to the immediate mammoth organising task and to cope with the financial fall-out.
PCS will survive, but we are asking for your help. We want everyone to email their MP to tell them to support our campaign and to urge Cameron and Maude to retain check-off. In your trades council, let local PCS colleagues know you are ready to help them in whatever way they need. If you have contacts with the Labour frontbench, contact them to pledge to restore check-off if they win in May.
We are under attack for standing up to this government and its austerity programme, but with your support and solidarity we can come through this period stronger. A weaker PCS means a weaker trade union movement – so I hope together we can resist this attack, resist austerity and kick out this union-busting government.
• See www.pcs.org.uk/stopunionbusting for more on how you can help the PCS campaign against union-busting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)