You may be aware, UNISON was instrumental in pursuing legislation through the Scottish Parliament to protect Emergency Workers. The Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act, 2006 made it a specific offence to attack or hinder an emergency worker in performance of their duties. At the time UNISON argued that the Act should not just cover the traditional “Blue Light” services of Police, Fire-fighters and Ambulance personnel and we were successful in having all workers in acute hospitals included in the list of those to whom the Act would apply. To date over 800 members of the public have been successfully prosecuted under the Act.
However, this still leaves many thousands of our members who are not protected, such as social workers, parking attendants, environmental workers, health service staff working in the community, classroom assistants and many others. It is for this reason that UNISON supports a private members bill in the Scottish Parliament proposed by Hugh Henry, MSP. The private members bill gained sufficient support to proceed and is at the first stage in the Scottish Parliament as the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill. If successful the Bill will make it an offence for a member of the public to assault a public sector worker carrying out their job or because of the job they do.
However a majority of MSPs on the Committee considering the Bill (SNP, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives) voted against it proceeding. We will therefore need to persuade all MSPs to support it when it is debated in the chamber early next year.
UNISON, in conjunction with the STUC, is launching a campaign in support of the Bill. To assist with this, please email your MSP seeking their support for the bill. Further information on the campaign can be found here.
This will be a very important piece of legislation for our members and will give another layer of protection in our fight against violence.
Please do all you can to publicise the Bill and take part in our campaign.
Using a variety of methods: publicity, advice, legislation we can tackle this unnecessary burden on our members. Please make every effort to take up the recommendations contained in this letter and assist the campaign.
Friday 17 December 2010
Friday 10 December 2010
Living Wage letter to Glasgow City Council
UNISON Regional Organiser, Simon MacFarlane has written to the Chief Executive of Glasgow City Council, George Black, leader of the Council, George Matheson and the Principal Officer of the Council, Kevin Rush to request a meeting to discuss the council's support for a Glasgow Living Wage.
Below we reproduce the text of the letter:
I am writing to ask to meet with you to discuss the Living Wage and its applicability to the voluntary sector. The Living Wage will only be of genuine benefit if it provides a floor across as much of the economy in Glasgow and beyond as possible. It is my view that the Council must use it social, economic and moral leavers to help deliver this.
Being the first Council in Scotland to sign up to the Living Wage is to be commended, however it is time for the Authority to act. Words and a website have their part to play but the Authority needs to put its money where its mouth is.
My job in UNISON is supporting our members who work in the community and voluntary sector. Many or our members work for charities involved in the provision of social care. These organisations have seen their funding to service provision ratio squeezed year on year and as the bulk of the costs in this area are staff this directly impacts on our members.
To give just one example, the Council is the major funder of The Mungo Foundation, many staff here earn below the Living Wage of £7.15, some are only a few pence above the National Minimum Wage, yet instead of wages rising they have been frozen for two years.
As the major funder of The Mungo Foundation you should be calling on them to implement the Living Wage, and crucially you should be funding them to do so.
I would like to meet with you along with some of our members who are affected by these issues to discuss this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Below we reproduce the text of the letter:
I am writing to ask to meet with you to discuss the Living Wage and its applicability to the voluntary sector. The Living Wage will only be of genuine benefit if it provides a floor across as much of the economy in Glasgow and beyond as possible. It is my view that the Council must use it social, economic and moral leavers to help deliver this.
Being the first Council in Scotland to sign up to the Living Wage is to be commended, however it is time for the Authority to act. Words and a website have their part to play but the Authority needs to put its money where its mouth is.
My job in UNISON is supporting our members who work in the community and voluntary sector. Many or our members work for charities involved in the provision of social care. These organisations have seen their funding to service provision ratio squeezed year on year and as the bulk of the costs in this area are staff this directly impacts on our members.
To give just one example, the Council is the major funder of The Mungo Foundation, many staff here earn below the Living Wage of £7.15, some are only a few pence above the National Minimum Wage, yet instead of wages rising they have been frozen for two years.
As the major funder of The Mungo Foundation you should be calling on them to implement the Living Wage, and crucially you should be funding them to do so.
I would like to meet with you along with some of our members who are affected by these issues to discuss this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Pay Negotiations 2010/11 - ACT NOW: SIGN THE PETITION NOW!
UNISON has set up a petition to further show support for our pay claim. More info on this is available below, but if you are in a rush please sign up to the petition now at
https://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/unisoninenable
Please also email a link from this page to your colleagues, whether they are UNISON members or not and encourage them to sign the petition too.
You will recall that we consulted members in September and October over our pay claim for this year. Members voted massively in favour of our claim, which you will recall was for:
• 2.5% on all salaries and allowances;
• That the sleepover allowance be paid for sleepovers up to 8 hours, anything above 8 hours to be paid at hourly rate;
• That Enable introduces the Scottish Living Wage as the minimum pay rate within Enable. The Scottish Living Wage is currently set at £7.00 per hour (due to rise to £7.15); more info on it can be found at http://povertyalliance.org/slw-home.asp .
• That a joint review of the changes to the sick pay scheme is undertaken soon after 1 April 2011 which is the anniversary of the changes.
Your negotiators met with management on 11th November to submit the claim and begin negotiations, below is an extract of the minuet from the Joint Negotiating Committee:
UNISON’s paper on its pay claim was presented and noted.
Peter stated that the management accounts to 30 September 2010 had only been made available in the last two days and indicated a breakeven position, despite having removed costs in the region of £250,000. Pressure from local authorities to make savings has been relentless and a number of local authorities have given a clear picture of what to expect and are looking for dramatic and immediate responses from the voluntary sector on top of cost reductions that have already been achieved. He also indicated that he is very conscious that front line staff are not paid enough and that his hope in the medium term is to redirect resources into those pay rates. However, how this will be done has still to be decided. Peter suggested that it may be worth setting up a smaller group to work on how this can be achieved but emphasised that there would be no overnight solution.
Peter asked for time to consider UNISON’s pay claim and review the organisation’s financial position further at the Finance Committee on 16 December 2010. He gave a commitment to coming back to UNISON with a response quickly after this date. Peter also indicated that ENABLE Scotland would be interested in working with UNISON on the campaigns detailed in their pay claim paper and that he will give this some thought.
Alan added that area reviews are being conducted so that there can be full confidence in the figures and finances in each area.
John raised an issue with staff in Ayrshire not being told what rate of pay they will receive for overtime and being unsure of what services have Grade A or Grade B work. Lorraine explained that the senior manager for the area determines the grading of the staff required to support each particular individual. She agreed that she will work with Allison Erwin and John to ensure that staff are aware of the overtime rates. John noted that expenses were also not being paid to staff to attend training courses. Gillian also questioned the practice in one service in Glasgow where, if one staff member on rota goes off sick, the remaining staff member has to support two people. Gillian suggested that the remaining staff member should receive extra payment. Some frustration was expressed about far costs can be cut and Peter emphasised that if ENABLE Scotland didn’t take care of its finances, it wouldn’t survive in the future. Peter stated that offers had been made for Directors to attend team meetings and made that offer again.
Stephen asked if the Board had expressed a view on staff pay increases or how staff are paid. Alan replied that the Board scrutinises the organisation’s activities and is aware of the current pay rates and that it is constantly on the agenda. Mike noted that the philosophy of the organisation had always focused on service quality. Against that, social care within the Scottish Budget will be vulnerable and ENABLE Scotland must guard against the private sector moving in. Mike emphasised, however, that ENABLE Scotland is not interested in providing services at any cost.
Simon noted the frustration of UNISON’s members and welcomed a tightening up of the information on Grade A, B and C staff, along with the overtime protocol. He also stated that UNISON will wait until the Finance Committee for a response from ENABLE Scotland but emphasised that frontline staff are really feeling the pinch.
As you will see the Finance Committee is due to meet on 16th December to discover our claim. We are seeking an early meeting following this but it will likely be early in the New Year. It is important that we keep up the pressure to get a decent settlement. Remember VAT goes up by 2.5% to 20% on 1 January 2011. So please sign the online petition we have created. We can then present this to Enable as we go in to further negotiations.
To do so visit: https://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/unisoninenable
https://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/unisoninenable
Please also email a link from this page to your colleagues, whether they are UNISON members or not and encourage them to sign the petition too.
You will recall that we consulted members in September and October over our pay claim for this year. Members voted massively in favour of our claim, which you will recall was for:
• 2.5% on all salaries and allowances;
• That the sleepover allowance be paid for sleepovers up to 8 hours, anything above 8 hours to be paid at hourly rate;
• That Enable introduces the Scottish Living Wage as the minimum pay rate within Enable. The Scottish Living Wage is currently set at £7.00 per hour (due to rise to £7.15); more info on it can be found at http://povertyalliance.org/slw-home.asp .
• That a joint review of the changes to the sick pay scheme is undertaken soon after 1 April 2011 which is the anniversary of the changes.
Your negotiators met with management on 11th November to submit the claim and begin negotiations, below is an extract of the minuet from the Joint Negotiating Committee:
UNISON’s paper on its pay claim was presented and noted.
Peter stated that the management accounts to 30 September 2010 had only been made available in the last two days and indicated a breakeven position, despite having removed costs in the region of £250,000. Pressure from local authorities to make savings has been relentless and a number of local authorities have given a clear picture of what to expect and are looking for dramatic and immediate responses from the voluntary sector on top of cost reductions that have already been achieved. He also indicated that he is very conscious that front line staff are not paid enough and that his hope in the medium term is to redirect resources into those pay rates. However, how this will be done has still to be decided. Peter suggested that it may be worth setting up a smaller group to work on how this can be achieved but emphasised that there would be no overnight solution.
Peter asked for time to consider UNISON’s pay claim and review the organisation’s financial position further at the Finance Committee on 16 December 2010. He gave a commitment to coming back to UNISON with a response quickly after this date. Peter also indicated that ENABLE Scotland would be interested in working with UNISON on the campaigns detailed in their pay claim paper and that he will give this some thought.
Alan added that area reviews are being conducted so that there can be full confidence in the figures and finances in each area.
John raised an issue with staff in Ayrshire not being told what rate of pay they will receive for overtime and being unsure of what services have Grade A or Grade B work. Lorraine explained that the senior manager for the area determines the grading of the staff required to support each particular individual. She agreed that she will work with Allison Erwin and John to ensure that staff are aware of the overtime rates. John noted that expenses were also not being paid to staff to attend training courses. Gillian also questioned the practice in one service in Glasgow where, if one staff member on rota goes off sick, the remaining staff member has to support two people. Gillian suggested that the remaining staff member should receive extra payment. Some frustration was expressed about far costs can be cut and Peter emphasised that if ENABLE Scotland didn’t take care of its finances, it wouldn’t survive in the future. Peter stated that offers had been made for Directors to attend team meetings and made that offer again.
Stephen asked if the Board had expressed a view on staff pay increases or how staff are paid. Alan replied that the Board scrutinises the organisation’s activities and is aware of the current pay rates and that it is constantly on the agenda. Mike noted that the philosophy of the organisation had always focused on service quality. Against that, social care within the Scottish Budget will be vulnerable and ENABLE Scotland must guard against the private sector moving in. Mike emphasised, however, that ENABLE Scotland is not interested in providing services at any cost.
Simon noted the frustration of UNISON’s members and welcomed a tightening up of the information on Grade A, B and C staff, along with the overtime protocol. He also stated that UNISON will wait until the Finance Committee for a response from ENABLE Scotland but emphasised that frontline staff are really feeling the pinch.
As you will see the Finance Committee is due to meet on 16th December to discover our claim. We are seeking an early meeting following this but it will likely be early in the New Year. It is important that we keep up the pressure to get a decent settlement. Remember VAT goes up by 2.5% to 20% on 1 January 2011. So please sign the online petition we have created. We can then present this to Enable as we go in to further negotiations.
To do so visit: https://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/unisoninenable
Thursday 2 December 2010
Personalisation speech to Community Care Providers Scotland Conference
Speech by Simon Macfarlane on Personalisation to Community Care Providers Scotland Conference on 25th November 2010 (as part of a debate on whether workers had been dealt a full hand or no hand by personalisation).
UNISON’s position on personalization is clear - we support it, we have policy in support of personalisation; as recently as 2nd November our first ever Community Conference for our new dedicated voluntary sector service group passed a motion clearly stating our support for the principles of genuine personal choice and control and independence in personal care. The motion also though set out our real concerns around the impact on the personalised workforce and the funding and quality of care.
This is entirely consistent from a union that has equality at its core and has pioneered self-organisation and vigorously addressed access issues within its own organisation.
So UNISON’s position is not that the work force has been dealt no hand, our concern is much more that the current construct of personalisation is in danger of becoming a house of cards due to inadequate resources.
UNISON has long been engaged in the personalisation agenda and the challenges it brings. In the past, UNISON was wrongly criticised for what was seen as our opposition to direct payments, and assertions were made that our members discouraged their take up.
To counter this in 2006/7 UNISON met with various representatives of disabled people’s organisations, such as the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living (GCIL), Scottish Personal Assistants Employers Network (SPAEN), and the Scottish Consortium of Direct Payment Support Organisations (SCODPSO). A joint statement followed confirming our support for the principle of independent living. More importantly, all parties agreed to work together on areas of mutual acceptance.
The statement acknowledged that direct payments had a legitimate role. However, it was clear that direct payments were not a substitute for other flexible and responsive public services, and were not appropriate for all people’s needs. It was further agreed that direct payments must complement a range of public services and must not be used to cover for inadequacies in public provision. Additionally the organisations agreed to jointly promote union membership.
UNISON believes that the personalisation and transformation of social care has been introduced without adequate funding, with the focus being on reducing the cost of supporting individuals and reducing the proportion of provision in the public sector and potentially the voluntary sector.
In England which is further down the track of personalisation the evidence is clear on the impact on staff personalisation is having:
The National Minimum Data Set for Social Care in England shows that between December 2008 and February 2010 the following occurred to pay rates in the following posts:
Care Workers at NVQ 1 or 2 level saw their pay in the private sector drop from £6.30 to £6.00, in the voluntary sector it dropped from £7.04 to £7.03 and in the public sector is went from £6.80 to £7.73.
For higher graded staff the results were equally stark. Senior Care Workers above NVQ2 saw their wages drop in the private sector from £6.85 to £6.80, in the voluntary sector from £8.34 to £8.08 whilst in the public sector they rose from £9.11 to £10.69.
In Scotland I’ve spent the last 18 months in brutal negotiations with many organisations here today, seeing pay freezes, redundancies, terms and conditions slashed, and so far I have seen no evidence that a move to personalisation will lead to any reversal of this trend.
There is an issue that personal and privatised care has not increased the quality and choice of care for all care recipients, it has also produced a sector of the care market and workforce that is unregulated and provided little incentive for employers to invest in a well trained and paid workforce.
Not all service users wish to take a Direct Payment and become an individual employer. UNISON believes that individual service users would benefit from the option of paying for a Personal Assistant (PA) but not being their direct employer. This could be done by local authorities or voluntary organisations directly employing a pool of PAs which service users can select from. In this way PAs would be employed by the local authority and not budget holders acting as micro employers.
In Scandinavia models such as this are common and they offer significant benefits to the person requiring support and the personal assistant.
We need workforce remodelling agreements both at national level and at employer level. The direction of travel is clear and the key stakeholders are broadly signed up to this. So we need the Scottish Government, Local Authorities and Health Boards to set out some minimum standards and safeguards for individuals needing support, workers and providers. There is an opportunity for some joint work between CCPS and UNISON here.
It is incumbent on voluntary organisations to be clearer and louder about the need for care services to be adequately resourced and in particular about the pay and conditions of workers in the sector. It isn’t right to portray pay freezes as evidence of the voluntary sector’s efficiency. Poverty pay and poor conditions are simply inimical to high quality personalised care. The right to a personalised care service can’t be an unfettered right, it comes with significant responsibilities. Many will need help and assistance in meeting those responsibilities and the voluntary sector has a unique and crucial role in assisting people to get the personalised support they need whilst acting in an ethical and responsible manner.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Personalisation can and should be introduced with adequate funding and safeguards for staff. The voluntary sector needs to get active in campaigns such as UNISON’s Public Works and the STUC’s There is a Better Way campaigns. There’s too much fence sitting going on when many of the people you and our members support will be deeply affected by benefit cuts and the myriad of other cuts.
So I say to you don’t let personalisation tumble like a pack of cards. Join with UNISON and the STUC in campaigning for a better settlement for public services however they are provided. If your organisation doesn’t yet recognise a union, come speak to me about how we can work together to make personalisation work for service users, organisations and staff.
UNISON’s position on personalization is clear - we support it, we have policy in support of personalisation; as recently as 2nd November our first ever Community Conference for our new dedicated voluntary sector service group passed a motion clearly stating our support for the principles of genuine personal choice and control and independence in personal care. The motion also though set out our real concerns around the impact on the personalised workforce and the funding and quality of care.
This is entirely consistent from a union that has equality at its core and has pioneered self-organisation and vigorously addressed access issues within its own organisation.
So UNISON’s position is not that the work force has been dealt no hand, our concern is much more that the current construct of personalisation is in danger of becoming a house of cards due to inadequate resources.
UNISON has long been engaged in the personalisation agenda and the challenges it brings. In the past, UNISON was wrongly criticised for what was seen as our opposition to direct payments, and assertions were made that our members discouraged their take up.
To counter this in 2006/7 UNISON met with various representatives of disabled people’s organisations, such as the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living (GCIL), Scottish Personal Assistants Employers Network (SPAEN), and the Scottish Consortium of Direct Payment Support Organisations (SCODPSO). A joint statement followed confirming our support for the principle of independent living. More importantly, all parties agreed to work together on areas of mutual acceptance.
The statement acknowledged that direct payments had a legitimate role. However, it was clear that direct payments were not a substitute for other flexible and responsive public services, and were not appropriate for all people’s needs. It was further agreed that direct payments must complement a range of public services and must not be used to cover for inadequacies in public provision. Additionally the organisations agreed to jointly promote union membership.
UNISON believes that the personalisation and transformation of social care has been introduced without adequate funding, with the focus being on reducing the cost of supporting individuals and reducing the proportion of provision in the public sector and potentially the voluntary sector.
In England which is further down the track of personalisation the evidence is clear on the impact on staff personalisation is having:
The National Minimum Data Set for Social Care in England shows that between December 2008 and February 2010 the following occurred to pay rates in the following posts:
Care Workers at NVQ 1 or 2 level saw their pay in the private sector drop from £6.30 to £6.00, in the voluntary sector it dropped from £7.04 to £7.03 and in the public sector is went from £6.80 to £7.73.
For higher graded staff the results were equally stark. Senior Care Workers above NVQ2 saw their wages drop in the private sector from £6.85 to £6.80, in the voluntary sector from £8.34 to £8.08 whilst in the public sector they rose from £9.11 to £10.69.
In Scotland I’ve spent the last 18 months in brutal negotiations with many organisations here today, seeing pay freezes, redundancies, terms and conditions slashed, and so far I have seen no evidence that a move to personalisation will lead to any reversal of this trend.
There is an issue that personal and privatised care has not increased the quality and choice of care for all care recipients, it has also produced a sector of the care market and workforce that is unregulated and provided little incentive for employers to invest in a well trained and paid workforce.
Not all service users wish to take a Direct Payment and become an individual employer. UNISON believes that individual service users would benefit from the option of paying for a Personal Assistant (PA) but not being their direct employer. This could be done by local authorities or voluntary organisations directly employing a pool of PAs which service users can select from. In this way PAs would be employed by the local authority and not budget holders acting as micro employers.
In Scandinavia models such as this are common and they offer significant benefits to the person requiring support and the personal assistant.
We need workforce remodelling agreements both at national level and at employer level. The direction of travel is clear and the key stakeholders are broadly signed up to this. So we need the Scottish Government, Local Authorities and Health Boards to set out some minimum standards and safeguards for individuals needing support, workers and providers. There is an opportunity for some joint work between CCPS and UNISON here.
It is incumbent on voluntary organisations to be clearer and louder about the need for care services to be adequately resourced and in particular about the pay and conditions of workers in the sector. It isn’t right to portray pay freezes as evidence of the voluntary sector’s efficiency. Poverty pay and poor conditions are simply inimical to high quality personalised care. The right to a personalised care service can’t be an unfettered right, it comes with significant responsibilities. Many will need help and assistance in meeting those responsibilities and the voluntary sector has a unique and crucial role in assisting people to get the personalised support they need whilst acting in an ethical and responsible manner.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Personalisation can and should be introduced with adequate funding and safeguards for staff. The voluntary sector needs to get active in campaigns such as UNISON’s Public Works and the STUC’s There is a Better Way campaigns. There’s too much fence sitting going on when many of the people you and our members support will be deeply affected by benefit cuts and the myriad of other cuts.
So I say to you don’t let personalisation tumble like a pack of cards. Join with UNISON and the STUC in campaigning for a better settlement for public services however they are provided. If your organisation doesn’t yet recognise a union, come speak to me about how we can work together to make personalisation work for service users, organisations and staff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)