Open Public Service' agenda: Turning the tide on privatisation using the new UK Public Procurement Regulations fringe #uNDC14

This post is a little late but this was one of the most interesting fringes at UNISON National Conference this year (#uNDC14).

The meeting was chaired by Jane Carolan (2nd from right) UNISON NEC.

First speaker was Dave Watson (2nd from left) who is the Senior UNISON Scotland Policy officer. Dave argued that while the public sector in Scotland is important, a third of the Scottish budget is actually spend on the private and voluntary sector. There has been a Scottish Procurement Reform Act which was intended to be "business friendly".  UNISON had argued for "10 asks" to be in the Act. Not all were agreed but preventing trade union black listers and tax dodging companies bidding for public contracts is in there as is (indirectly) a Scottish living wage.

Dave then gave the best bit of advice on dealing with lawyers that I have ever heard. Don't ask your legal advisers "what is legal position?" Ask instead "this what we intend to do - so can you advise us how to do it".

Former head of the Socialist Health Association (SHA) Richard Bourne (left of photo) was next. He saw  procurement as a "weapon". He didn't see European legislation as being the real enemy since it is fairly liberal. The problem is the Tories. While Councils are quite good at it, health is "crap" at procurement. They tend to be arrogant, not open and transparent and with no accountability. They find it almost impossible to get it right - so challenge. There has been a number of successes.

3rd speaker (see photo middle) was Chris Durnall, who is a top trade union activist, fellow Community Branch Secretary and member of our Service Group Executive. She works for a national Children's charity. Chris reported on the onslaught in our sector of attacks on terms and conditions, reductions in numbers and lower grades. Our members have suffered cuts in pay of up to 40%, Defined benefit pensions are a distant memory and employers treat staff as "costs" not people.

We need a political approach. Commissioners, employers and unions need to work together. We need political and industrial pressure to bring about a living wage and better pay. We need an Ethical care policy with full costs recovery. Move away procurement and return to grant funding and wage councils. A strong union is the best thing we have to protect members.

Matt Dykes (right of picture), Senior policy officer at the TUC was the last speaker. He spoke about "Social Procurement" with agreement about models being used for bids. He wants to see Freedom of Information applied to all with "open book accounting" . All contracted out staff ought to be on NJC (local government) terms and conditions. There is no significant evidence that outsourcing works. There is now a trend for "in-sourcing". We need a Social Value Act. Public opinion is on our side. There is a lot of support within the Labour Party (such as John Trickett MP) but we have to convince their Treasury team that it is value for money.

There was not that much time for a Q&A but I remember Dave Watson explaining that in his experience the cost of a Living wage is cost always exaggerated. In the ones he has been involved in it has only been 1/3 the estimated cost.

#UNDC13 Capital Stewardship fringe - Wednesday Evening

Picture from UNISON NDC Capital Stewardship fringe "time for members to govern their money" with UNISON national officer Colin Meech, Mo Baines from Greater Manchester Pension Fund (Chaired by NEC Jane Carolan in the middle)

Colin spoke about the need to bring the fund management of the local government pension (LGPS) fund "in-house"and stop being ripped off by City fund managers. He briefed us on the new governance arrangements of the LGPS which will probably come into effect in 2015 (we think).

Mo praised Colin for his work on pensions. He had been the first to point out why schools and hospitals use PFI to fund rebuilding when we have money elsewhere?

The Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) is worth £10 billion but it only has trade union  observers with no voting rights. The fund is looking into localised investments. It wants to build 240 homes for market rent. If you pay into a pension scheme then the area you live in should also benefit from scheme investments.

Mo said that fish always rot from the top. We should make sure that in the LGPS we change fund management from the top.

My question to both is that UNISON should consider regional networks of LGPS pension reps to encourage and give face to face support to reps? There use to be a national network of LGPS reps who actually sit on pension panels and committees, who could be consulted and give feed back on what they they need to help them carry out their duties.

Colin responded by saying there will be a national consultation forum. He warned us not to underestimate those who feed off your money. Do they want to give this up? There are huge vested interests. The LGPS has high fees plus hidden charges. You could clear pension deficits within 8 years if the LGPS was merged & you cut costs and raise performance.

#UNDC13 "Do they mean us? The squeezed middle and the new politics of pay" fringe

Picture from fringe on Tuesday lunch time at UNISON National Delegate Conference 2013 chaired by Jane Carolan from NEC.

First speaker was James Plunkett (left) from the Resolution Foundation.

He reported on the collapse in pay increases since 2000 (Not just since the 2008 recession) and pointed out that only 1/3rd of welfare cuts have taken place so far. He described a "Epidemic of low pay" which he believes is structural. While there has been growth in high pay jobs, there has been a reduction in middle pay jobs and growth in low pay jobs.  He believes that better training is not going to be enough to change things. Why does Norway have 1/2 the number of low pay jobs than the UK?  It is because they have made different choices than us.

James thought that a way forward is the level of the Living wage but he does not believe it should be compulsory but there should be transparency and companies that can afford to pay should be named and shamed if they don't.

Next was  Faiza Shaheen from the New Economic Foundation (3rd from left). She agreed about the massive low pay problem. Not only is there the cost to individuals who face the choice of eat or heat there is an wider economic cost.  The cost of tax credits to subsidise low pay have increased by over 50%.  While even the IMF recognise that low pay has resulted in low demand in our economy. She linked pay levels to union density. The higher the density the better the pay. In the public sector unions have done good work especially on low paid but it is still a low pay sector despite the outsourcing of 400k jobs to the private sector. Faiza thought that looking at wage ratios may be better than the level of living wage. 

She posed the question - why is the gender gap bin the private sector between men and women significantly higher than the public sector?

Final speaker was Assistant General Secretary Karen Jennings (4th left). Karen reminded the fringe that UNISON use to be criticised within the labour movement for its support of the minimum wage and although it is not enough the minimum wage has made a real difference to the lives of the working poor. The growth in the pay gulf has led to many of the poor being dependent on food banks and payday loans. Despite the "bile" of the Tory press about public sector pay the reality is a massive increase in claims from our members to UNISON welfare.

A paramedic now earns  £5k less in real terms than 2010.  While a teaching assistant is £7k worse off. The way out of poverty is now not hard work. No matter how hard they work many are still stuck in poverty. The answer involves the living wage, spread of collective bargaining and ending of employment practises such as no zero hour contracts.

But we also need to get people to understand more about the politics of pay.  In a recent YouGov poll people listed their top 5 priorities.  They complained about high prices for goods and services but only listed pay as their 5th priority. They failed to make the connection between being unable to afford things and their low wages.

In the Q&A I asked about the possible role of wage councils in addressing this problem? Other northern European countries still have such bodies and have better pay levels, especially in industries which are hard to organise. James thought they could have a role. Another member reminded everyone that it was not the the traditional low paid who have difficulties. Even if you earn £30k per year. James said that the housing model for the squeezed middle is completely broken. They are unable to buy and pay high rents with no security. He is looking into the role of institutional investment in the rental market.

UNISON Pay, Bargaining and Equalities Seminar 2012

On Thursday I attended this national UNISON seminar at our headquarters in Euston. Jane Carolan, NEC, Chair of Service Group Liaison welcomed us saying that the traditional response by the union to serious disputes with our employers had been industrial conflict, that option will always remain but we also need to consider other options. We had a presentation on the "Economic Overview" by Nicola Smith , Head of Economic and Social Affairs at the TUC.

After a Q&A there were workshops on "Outsourcing and procurement"; "Attacks on terms and conditions"; "Negotiating with the private and voluntary sector" and "Bargaining". Then there was a presentation on UNISON Pay Strategy by our General Secretary Dave Prentis and Assistant General Secretary Karen Jennings. This was followed by a reception in the Atrium with speaker Anna Bird (Fawcett Society - see picture). On Friday morning Alistair Hatchett, Head of Pay and HR services from the IDS gave an entertaining account of how the Tories and the Tax Evaders Alliance deliberately distort and mislead on public sector pay. After the last workshop, Mike Kirby, Regional Secretary Scotland spoke on "making the best of the Coalition Government, a perspective from devolved nations".

I am pleased that UNISON is taking the education and development of its activists seriously. Not just the nuts and bolts of bargaining and negotiating but the wider economic, social and economic framework.

Letter to David Cameron

"In proposing a reply to one’s opponents, in the best Oxbridge tradition, it is traditional to start by finding at least one flattering thing to say of them. This letter is in more of a Roman tradition. I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him.

Was the tone struck at the start supposed to be Churchillian?

“We can build a country defined not by what we can consume but by what we can contribute. A country, a society where we can say I am not alone. I will play my part. I will work with others to give Britain a brand new start.”

Winston was rallying the country to stand up to the Nazi hordes when he asked us to fight them on the beaches, a somewhat more noble enterprise than your government is attempting. You are asking us to bow down to the greed of the financial sector and the bankers who have cost this country dearly, to self-flagellate while you pull the great achievements of Britain down about us. You are defending the indefensible, declaring war on the working people of this country.

Of course the reference may have been intended to be more to JFK, asking not what the country can do for you but what you can do for your country. But you sir are no John Kennedy, more the boy who cries wolf trying to scare us into believing the unbelievable.

Like your Chancellor before you, you are content to lie to the British people, spouting the same old right wing ideology dressed up as urgency and necessity and accepting the praise of the IMF, a discredited body who failed to see the financial storm coming even as the tornado blew in. Your economic policy turns the clock back to the disreputable Tory policies of the 1920’s. Another Great Depression anyone?

But then, when my family were standing in dole queues then, yours and Osborne’s were probably dining at the Ritz. Then, as now, as the song goes, it’s the rich what get the pleasure and the poor the bloody blame.
“Reduced spending,” you say will be difficult, “but lets remember a lot of businesses have had to make savings in recent years”.

But can you answer an honest question? How many businesses have remained solvent while cutting wages, cutting investment and selling off the plant and machinery? But that is what you propose to do to the British economy, isn’t it?

You cannot be serious in asking us to trust your government with the NHS when the White Paper that your party has just produced will dismantle its infrastructure and sell off the component parts to the highest bidder, producing a health care system akin to an American model where treatment depends not on your illness but on the ability to pay, thus ensuring the highest profit for privatised providers?

Please don’t ask me and the rest of the working people of this country to believe you when you talk about poverty. For the Tory Party, poverty is another country, one you have never visited and have no intention of travelling to. I doubt that Mrs C counts out the leckie money, the rent and the council tax from her meagre minimum wage, to see if she has enough left to feed the kids that week. Spare us the crocodile tears.

“Fairness isn’t just about getting help from the state”? Your quote. You said it. What about the help given to the tax dodgers and non doms who fail to pay their way? Why is the state helping them dodge paying their fair share?

You talk of “more freedom for local councils to keep more of the money when they attract business to the area”. At the same time you deprive local government of funds necessary to keep services running. We remember the great cities of this country in the 1980 are when you tried the same tactics. When Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester were starved of necessary investment and they became urban wastelands from which businesses fled. We don’t look forward to time turning back.

We know what you mean when you say, "No more top down, bureaucrat driven public services”. Strip out the adjectives and there is the truth: - No more public services. Strip out the professionals, as you said of the police service and leave law and order to the special constables, the Keystone cops, or the hobby Bobbies. And since we don’t have enough university places or apprenticeships for our young people, let’s ship them to the colonies, sorry offer them “international service". Thunderbirds are go!

I’m afraid your roots as a PR man are showing. Your performance as an international statesman is as convincing as Roger Moore’s in 007. There is no integrity, only bluster and sounds bites hiding the use of political power as a means of ensuring that post war social democracy is dismantled, and that we return a life that is solitary, poor, nasty brutal and short.

So I won’t be heeding you plea “to pull together”. In my world suicide is to be avoided, as bad for the health".

Jane Carolan - hat tip UNISONactive

“The Battle for the LGPS Governance”

Today I went to the first UNISON national seminar on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) -“Representation and Governance” in central London.

While I appreciate that for some strange reason, many folk do not appear to value the governance arrangements of the LGPS. I and about 75 others from across the land disagreed and had made our way to the NUT headquarters in Kings Cross to take part in this event.

The seminar was chaired by UNISON NEC member Jane Carolan and the opening speaker was UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis. Dave pointed out that the LGPS had an estimated 3.6 million members and the total value of all investments in the scheme was around £125 billion. How well this scheme is run is actually of importance not only to scheme members, but also to some extent, the wider British economy.

There was a number of speakers including the “enemy” (joke of course) CLG civil servants Bob Holloway and Terry Crossley. By co-incidence, both the CLG and UNISON speakers, used the same photo of the first major pension thief, Capt Bob Maxwell, in their presentations. He of course, stole hundreds of millions of pounds, from the “Mirror” pension scheme.

The presentation on the LGPS and EU Directive 41 “Institutions for Occupational Retirement” (aka “IORP”) was, believe it or not, absolutely fascinating.

In the past there has been a dispute between senior civil servants and union negotiators whether the LGPS was a “Bath” or a “Sausage machine”. Today, we also learnt that there was a discussion on whether or not it was a “duck” as well? The plot thickens.

It’s getting a bit late and there was too much to post tonight. So I will post various stuff I found interesting later on in the week.

Update: I forgot to mention the Maxwell connection and the LGPS. In order to stop pensions theft and other bad practices the Government commissioned the Goode Report. One of the recommendations of this report was that the LGPS should have staffside representation with statutory rights (short of voting rights). However, due to "opposition" from employers this was never implemented. Why?