"How the housing crisis is affecting the sector’s own staff"

A harrowing and disturbing article by Inside Housing's Jess McCabe. What happens when the workers who try and provide homes for the vulnerable are themselves living as homeless. What a sick society we live in. Employers must accept their responsibility for their staff and raise their game. See motion to UNISON Community Conference on this need.

A lack of decent, affordable housing is also affecting social landlord employees. Jess McCabe investigates. Illustration by Nick Chaffe

Social landlords are proud of their social mission: to provide decent and affordable housing. So what does it mean if some of their own staff – tasked with that very mission – are struggling to keep a roof over their heads?

Earlier this autumn, the chief executive of a large London housing association made a passing comment during an interview with Inside Housing. She had discovered that members of her own staff were living in insecure housing.

“If they were in the social sector we would consider them homeless.”

“They’re all in shared houses, or even shared bedrooms, or living in places that are disgusting,” said Kate Davies of 32,000-home Notting Hill Housing. “If they were in the social sector we would consider them homeless in those circumstances.”

It sounded shocking that a housing association’s staff could be considered effectively homeless by its chief executive.

Inside Housing wanted to investigate if this was a one-off, perhaps focused on the struggles of London life. Or was it a widespread phenomenon? We launched an anonymous survey to find out more.

What we discovered was startling. Members of staff in housing associations, councils and homelessness charities are going into work every day to contribute to the running of Britain’s social housing – and then coming ‘home’ to face the hard realities of the modern housing market (see below).

First, we must put into context that such housing problems do not affect the majority of respondents. A full 68% said they are satisfied with their housing situation. Indeed, 59% of respondents own their home, while a small number (2.5%, or 14 individuals) are in shared ownership. Another 12% live in social housing themselves. This is not always a cakewalk – particularly for staff whose employer is also their landlord – but these respondents are, by and large, happy with their lot.

Most of the problems were reported by the remaining one in five housing staff who live in privately rented homes, temporary housing, shared housing, or with friends or family. Some of these respondents were at the beginning of their careers on salaries well below the national average salary, which is £27,271 this year.

“We have members who rely on food banks and mini cabbing in the evening.”

But earning above this average, and having a managerial job, was not an absolute protection either. Even homeowners on a high income are affected by housing problems: one chief executive reported that their own child was sofa-surfing.

The majority of housing staff spend more than 30% of their salary on rent or housing costs, while 7% spend more than half their earnings on putting a roof over their head.

Many respondents told us of struggling to pay the rent – or prioritising their rent but struggling to afford food as well as things that, while not essential, are part of a satisfying life. “Some months I’m not left with much or anything after my rent goes out,” one told us. Another simply said: “I just go without everything else.”

It’s a story that is familiar to John Gray, a housing officer in east London who is Unison’s National Executive Committee member for the housing sector. “We have members who rely on food banks and mini cabbing in the evening and weekends to support their families,” he says.

Staff in the capital are particularly affected, and some are “fleeing London” for less expensive parts of the country, Mr Gray adds. He has submitted a motion calling for action on this issue to Unison’s community conference in February 2018.

Several respondents admitted to feeling despondent and even depressed about their housing. “Good housing makes for a good family life,” one noted. Of course, the converse is that a lack of good housing is not conducive to good family life.

“Depression, unable to imagine a future, no possibility of raising a family,” summarised one manager in the East of England.

When shown the results, Alison Inman, president of the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “I wonder what the consequences are when staff feel that the tenants they are working with are housed more securely, and in far better maintained homes than they are able to access themselves?”

“I feel like people [living] in social housing should be more appreciative of what they have.”

When we asked housing staff about how their own housing conditions affect how they feel about their job, a minority simply said: “It doesn’t.” But for most there is a direct connection.

Some of this is good, such as for one staff member who commented: “My job keeps reminding me of how lucky I am to have a safe, secure home, unlike others who do not.”

But the feelings stirred up are not all positive. Two respondents simply said they felt “angry”.

Others admitted resentment. “I feel like people [living] in social housing should be more appreciative of what they have, rather than expecting the housing association to fix every little thing that goes wrong,” said one administrative staff member, who lives with their mother. “If I was a resident, I would be grateful.”

Another said: “I love my job and what we do is so important but it’s frustrating that at 35 I still can’t afford something more permanent than a house share and because of my circumstances will never qualify for any useful help.”

Yet another comment was: “Sometimes you see residents who have [a] higher standard of living than you yet [are] still getting state aid in the form of social rents.”

Those who had experienced housing problems and been directly refused help by their employer were particularly disillusioned.

Speaking to Inside Housing about these results over the phone, Ms Davies of Notting Hill Housing is not surprised. But what can landlords actually do? Is the answer higher pay?

On the one hand, Ms Davies says that London employers in particular may struggle to retain staff if they can’t afford to live in the capital. The problem is real, she says, with “people in couples and even with kids in shared housing”.

But it may not be possible for landlords to solve their staff’s housing problems by raising salaries alone. “If the average salary is £26,000 to £27,000, that only sustains £700 a month [on housing costs]. Wages would have to be doubled to make any difference whatsoever,” Ms Davies notes.

If that is unlikely to happen, should employees despair of their employers doing anything to help?

Ms Davies argues not, pointing out that Notting Hill runs a tenancy deposit loan scheme for staff, which can help with one large cost of housing in the private rented sector.

Since April 2015, 19 employees have taken up the loan, with five currently making repayments. Landlords also should ensure that their staff are not excluded from renting or buying, or applying for schemes their employer runs.

Even if these measures are not going to be enough to solve all the housing problems of staff, they might help people working in housing feel less excluded, and as if the sector has no answer to their housing woes.

The results of this survey are in many ways a challenge to social landlords.

Knowing that their own staff members are suffering from the housing crisis, what – if anything – are they going to do about it?

HOUSING STAFF SPEAK OUT

The below are all quotes from staff working in the social housing sector:

“I suffer from mental health problems after being served so many Section 21 notices when a landlord is ready to sell. I live in London and have had 14 addresses in 13 years. I have had to seek counselling for this and was medicated in the past. My two-year-old daughter has had four addresses already.”

“I always have low-level anxiety about security. I feel unable to better my situation – trapped, it exacerbates my depression and feelings of dependency.”

“My job makes me appreciate how lucky I am and how fragile housing security can be.”

“I ended up on antidepressant tablets for depression and anxiety. I was breaking down in tears and my company didn’t support me or help to rehouse me when I asked for help.”

“I’m not paid enough to afford a decent home event after working full time. It makes me realise how close I am to the people I support (one month’s salary away from homelessness).”

“It affects all aspects of your life, because you do not have your own personal space or privacy, especially when you’re living in an overcrowded flat.”

“I am struggling currently and am going to be homeless soon and am unsure where I am going to go. This makes me feel anxious and the unknown is daunting.”

“It makes me appreciate the work housing associations do for people, but I’m annoyed at government for ignoring housing as an issue to be dealt with.”

“I feel sad that I have very minimal rights in relation to those we serve – I see the contrast between the rights of social and private tenants to be worlds apart.”

“Of all the people that promote and lobby for more social housing, few live in it and are often homeowners despite being disparaging about those who aspire to have this choice.”

“I have moved to cheaper accommodation (sharing with seven people) in order to reduce costs.”

“I am always looking at things from a customer’s point of view and find myself empathising with their financial struggles. It can be difficult to then turn these emotions off and think of the needs of the business first and pursue arrears when tenants are struggling, often through no fault of their own.”

“I feel unable to complain about occasional poor service as my landlord is my employer.”

“I am a grown adult living with parents.”

“Most of my colleagues are homeowners of social tenants themselves so it can feel very lonely as they really do not understand some of the issues with living in [the private] sector.”

“Very frustrated sometimes. I am helping people all the time but there is no help for me and my situation.”

“I live on a mixed-tenure estate and think that’s an incredibly positive experience for my family.”

“My housing association is rubbish and penny-pinching when it comes to repairs. They are also quite arrogant.”

“My relationship is fine but I couldn’t afford to stay on if we separated.”

“Other people are in a much worse situation, and without housing associations would end up homeless. I am frustrated that my own housing situation isn’t better, but I think this is the result of government housing policy.”

UNISON at Notting Hill HA

Picture of Notting Hill UNISON activists in Vauxhall with our ace branch Fighting Fund Organiser, Mary Stump (left), after one of the most successful lunchtime recruitment events I have attended. Six new members filled out forms and there was huge interest and discussion from staff. .

I was there to help out on any pension enquiries as well to meet branch members and activists.

Many thanks to Notting Hill HR for providing a "hand masseuse" to attend our event (which went down really well) and for hot Pizza! 

"One article does not wipe the slate clean"

 A really important and interesting article by Steve Hilditch on the Labour Housing Group website "Red Brick" about the undermining of social housing during the last decade. The CEO of Notting Hill is not the only one and actually not the worse by far.

Yet another reason to start a National campaign to democratise Housing Associations make them accountable and bring them back  their real roots. Watch this space.

"Having attended Owen Jones excellent lecture on ‘optimism’ over the holiday, I had resolved to view 2017 with more positivity, looking at what is possible in the future rather than what has gone wrong in the past. Sadly, the feeling didn’t last long. I read an article by Kate Davies (the chief executive of Notting Hill Housing Trust for more than a decade) in Inside Housing. On the surface there was little to complain about, mostly I agree with the content. It explains the benefits of social housing, low rents and security, and complains about the lack of grant for new homes. It sets out the serious implications of the shortage of social housing, a common enough theme on Red Brick.

But context is everything. My annoyance at the piece stemmed from knowing Kate’s role, as I see it, in undermining the cause of social housing over the past decade, in two ways. First, she has led an organisation which deliberately decided not to provide as many social rented homes as it could have done – amounting to thousands of homes over the period which could have been used to house people in housing need. Secondly, she was a leading light in the campaigns and lobbying that seriously challenged the existence of social housing as we had known it, policies that were taken up directly by the Coalition and now the Tory Government. In her article, she makes no acknowledgement of her previous views and takes no responsibility for their impact.

Of course, she was not alone. There were many others in UK housing who went down similar paths. People fell over each other to disparage the social housing ‘offer’and to stereotype its occupants. It is the combination of failing to deliver as much social housing as possible, failing to defend genuinely affordable housing from attack, and failing to contradict the media’s demonisation of tenants, that has led me to be so critical of leading figures and institutions, especially in the housing association world. Homeless and badly housed people have been the victims of their loss of commitment and weakness of vision.

I was on the Board of Notting Hill Housing Trust for six years, from 2002-2008, having served on area committees before that and having had connections with the Trust since 1972. It is an organisation that really matters in west London and has transformed thousands of lives. Along with Kate and many others I worked hard, with some success, to improve the performance of a once great organisation that had hit the doldrums. With regard to housing development I am a pragmatist: I supported Notting Hill’s role in promoting shared ownership, and have had a long-held interest in providing homes in the ‘intermediate’ sector as well as for those most in need. As a Board member I supported tentative moves into highly profitable private development because it could be used to cross-subsidise an increase in social rented homes. It was a time when grant for social housing was substantial and the Brown Government had increased the budget considerably.

But the Trust came to be dominated by a philosophy which saw social renting as something to be disparaged, a ‘dead end’ and a route into ‘dependency’, and which also placed home ownership on a pedestal called ‘aspiration’. Provision of social rented homes was downgraded in priority, there were moves into making tenancies conditional (eg on seeking work), whilst more and more effort went into shared ownership and private development. There were skirmishes at the Board over individual schemes where the proposed balance between social rent and shared ownership was weighted in favour of the latter even though the finances of the scheme seemed to allow for more social renting in the mix.

It came to a head in early 2008 when a new 5 year development programme was put before the Board. It was fully costed, certified by the Director of Finance as a credible and viable plan, and it reflected in full the policy of the then mayor, Ken Livingstone, that development should be 50% affordable (35% social rent and 15% intermediate). Having drafted Ken’s housing strategy, I was delighted that NHHT planned to follow the lead. But the proposal was withdrawn by the chief executive and a different strategy was brought to the next Board. The amount of shared ownership was significantly increased and the share of social rent significantly decreased. After a long and difficult Board meeting, where I was an isolated advocate for the first strategy, the revision was passed (as I recall) by 8 votes to 1. The mix in the programme was proposed to shift from (social rent: intermediate) 70:30 to 40:60, much more extreme than even the policy of the incoming mayor Boris Johnson (although still much better than now).

I resigned. In my (July 2008) letter to the Chair, a clever businessman who helped improve the Trust in many other ways, I commented:

I cannot support the Board’s decision to approve the strategic plan proposed by the Corporate Management Team and the underlying attitudes it reflects. The basic premise of the growth strategy is that NHHT should make ‘shed loads of money’ from private development, which can then be applied to meeting housing needs.  But this argument falls if CMT and the Board then decide to provide many fewer social rented homes than could be provided within reasonable business parameters.  Real choices were available in deciding the strategy – and the final decision reflects serious differences of principle.  In short terms, I feel that NHHT is fixated with promoting home ownership and has insufficient commitment to meeting housing need.

Any reasonable analysis of housing need in London shows that the highest priority is for more social rented homes.  Of course other objectives come into play, and I have consistently supported mixed development and intermediate housing options .………  Compared to the first version of the corporate strategy in March (which was also recommended by CMT), the revised strategy would produce 1,500 fewer homes for social rent over 5 years. 

Externally, Kate was often heavily involved in policy development and lobbying. Amongst other things, she was a key advisor to the extremely influential Localis review (Principles for Social Housing Reform) on which Red Brick has commented many times (for example here). She chaired the ‘Housing and Dependency Working Group’ for Duncan Smith’s (misnamed) Centre for Social Justice producing a report – using NHHT resources – on housing poverty in 2008, where she repeated her call for an end to security of tenure and criticised social housing for providing ‘low cost living for life funded from the public purse’.

Of course Kate is fully entitled to hold her own views and to pursue them as she wishes. In many ways she is very good at her job. But the antagonism to social renting affected both what NHHT was doing and what it was saying to Government as a prominent housing provider. For example, in 2006 I managed to get the Board to agree not to submit draft evidence to the John Hills review on the future of social housing because it supported tax relief for first time buyers (without evidence) and because it called for the ending of security of tenure for social tenants and higher rents. My view was that the proposed evidence stigmatised tenants: social housing was described as ‘subsidised’ whilst shared ownership was not; tenants were seen as second-class citizens who needed ‘a springboard back into society’; social housing was a ‘dead end’ where lives ‘stagnate’. Home ownership was seen as the miracle cure for social ills.

It has become fashionable once again for leaders in UK housing to describe in graphic terms the rise in homelessness and the appalling degree of housing need in our country. But the industry has an awful lot to feel ashamed about and failing to defend social rented housing is top of the list. People should be held to account for what they did when the money was available, what they have advocated for as individuals in public debate, and, crucially, how they used the platform and resources provided by their organisations to promote their views. One article does not wipe the slate clean".

"Save Our Pensions" Community Conference 2013

This is my speech from the Community Conference on Saturday on motion 23 (see text here "Save Our Pensions"). Which is a motion from my branch.

"John Gray speaking on behalf of your Service Group Executive, in favour of this motion and moving this amendment which is intended to update the original motion in light of recent developments.

Conference, please thank Tony (Power - my branch chair) for his excellent speech. From someone who to my personal knowledge has a led a terrific battle to save his pension and that of his colleagues. What I would like to add to the debate here is that no one should be under any illusions about pensions.

The only hope for you and your members have of having a dignified retirement is a well funded and secure employer retirement plan.

You cannot rely on the state pension. The flawed Government plan for a new universal state pension will only provide at best an income just above the absolute poverty line

As a Housing estate officer in the East End of London, I have seen first hand pensioners living in poverty, buying second hand clothes, eating out of date food, huddled in front of the TV in a freezing cold room because they are too scared to turn the heating on. Stuck in this freezing home because they have no money for trips or holidays and shamed that they are too poor to treat their grandchildren.

That is your future, your member’s future if you do not have a decent secure pension from your work.

Pensions are an expensive business. There is an old rule of thumb in the pension’s world that in order to retire on half your pay and a lump sum, you need to save 15% of your pay for 40 years, repeat 15% for 40 years.

Hardly anyone in the best of times can put 15% of their salary in a pension, never mind the times we live in now. That is why your employer will need to put in at least 10% plus into your pension or else it is condemning its work force to retire and die in poverty.

Conference, please remind your employers this when you negotiate over auto-enrollment and ask them the question do they as a responsible employer want their workers to enjoy or endure retirement. Ask them to do the maths. It is quite simple to work what they need to save on your behalf. Are they responsible employers or are they rogue employers?

Yet, what we increasingly find in practice is the exact opposite. As already pointed out by London Housing Associations branch, some employers, who in the past, were good employers and provided access to good quality defined benefit schemes are using the nonsensical and irrational accounting measures as an excuse to close these schemes and replace them with insecure poverty pensions.

They are closing schemes even in the knowledge that there is - as the amendment points out, an urgent government inquiry taking place on ways to change the way we value schemes which could get reduce or even get rid of many deficits.

There is a unholy alliance of the CBI, TUC and National Association of Pension funds who support change. So why has East Thames and Notting Hill Housing associations closed their scheme in recent weeks? why have others such as Barnardos announced similar intentions? what role did the Pension Trust and the Social Housing Pension fund play in bankrupting the charity PeopleCan the organisation Joe mentioned in his speech earlier today?

While our members are in a whole variety of pension schemes, this is important since our UNISON e-survey late last year found that 35% of our members are in Defined Benefit (DB) guaranteed pension schemes

DB guaranteed pension schemes are NOT a thing of the past. UNISON recently won access to the Local Government Pensions Scheme for new starters at South Lakes Housing Association. Wrekin and Telford Housing are offering all staff the LGPS as well.

Due to the behaviour of some employers and pension providers we also should welcome the call in this motion for the wider Labour movement to look into whether, we the unions, should be involved in providing decent pensions provision, as they do in many other countries.

Conference, while we welcome the plans to smooth valuations and replace them with more accurate estimates it is important that the government accepts and implements these accounting changes without delay and that our employers who are disgracefully still rushing to destroy their employees future when they know this inquiry will report soon, should pause and stop.

Conference please support this amendment and the motion. Thank you. (update UNISONactive take on conference)

Inside Housing censuring negative remarks about Notting Hill Housing Group?

"All together Better"? I hope it is not true that the Inside Housing magazine "web site" has been censuring forceful (but not I understand in any way offensive) comments made in response to this article.  Some employees and residents of a certain London Housing
Group have apparently taken exception to this article and made comments which were later removed from the site. Click on caption (left) to bring up detail.

Without at all criticising the people named in the report I must admit that the article does appear to be a "lift" from a typical daft and gushing insult to the intelligence RSL press release.  Something we see of far too often in our sector. I will try and find out more.

The Bile on Sunday turns on its own: The Tory CEO and the Tory Housing Advisor

Yesterday, UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis, at our Community conference, referred to the ideologically motivated attacks on vulnerable workers and carers by the Tory Housing Advisor and £197k per year CEO of Notting Hill Housing Trust (Kate Davis). 

The day before, the usually hideous "Tory On Sunday" published a full attack on Kate Davis (who believe it or not is also allegedly a former General Secretary of the  Revolutionary Communist Party) and her partner Nick Johnson.

Nick use to be the £203k CEO of Tory Bexley Council.  He had a heart attack and was medically retired with a pension of £50k a year.  The Tory "Bile" claims that 4 months after being medically retired he was appointed as CEO of the Tory Council Hammersmith and Fulham Homes (ALMO) at £260k per year! 

"The Bile" further alleges that Nick's permanent health disability pension is not reduced (I think the correct term is "abated") due to his new employment because Hammersmith and Fulham have allowed him to receive his income via a private company?  If this is true it it absolutely outrageous to Council tax payers and those who have been dismissed due to ill health but would lose their pension if they are able to work.

But, what can you expect? this is what Tories do for their own!

Notting Hill Housing Dispute: Acas talks

This update was published in Inside Housing yesterday.  Double click on caption to bring up details.

Since talks are ongoing I won't say anymore at the moment except of course to hope that the talks are successful.

You can find out more about the history of the dispute here, here and here.

UNISON in London Summer 2010 Magazine

This morning in the post I received the latest version of “UNISON in London”.

This is our newsletter for stewards and activists in Greater London region. You should be soon able to download it here.

Some of the top stories are Dave Prentis on The New Tory-Lib Dem government; Notting Hill Trust Dispute and UNISON Parliamentary reception; impressive recruitment figures for London; Labour Landslide in London and a report on “Workers Memorial Day” .

“Work related injuries double in 6 Years”

Well done to “Inside Housing” for exposing this huge rise in work related injuries amongst housing officers. I was interviewed for this piece as the UNISON Housing Association Branch Health & Safety officer. They reported my view that the figures were “shocking” but due to under reporting such statistics actually underplayed the true extent of the problem and that common occupational health illnesses such as work related stress are not reportable in any case.

I also pointed out that in some organisations Housing staff are “encouraged” not to report attacks by residents since they will be blamed for not being “professional enough to avoid being attacked in the first place”. Pretty sick (pardon the pun and thankfully this attitude is not found in all Housing organisations) but true.

Funny enough during last week’s protests by Notting Hill Housing staff I was told by UNISON members that they had been told by a certain, let us say, “very senior manager” (mention no names) something very similar to above.

Notting Hill Housing Dispute: UNISON Housing Association Branch Press Release.

UNISON BEGINS LUNCHTIME LOBBIES OF EMPLOYERS’ HEAD OFFICE

The first of a week-long series of Lunchtime Lobbies of Notting Hill Housing Trust’s (NHHT) head office got of to a rousing start yesterday. UNISON members shared lunch with many of their non-union colleagues whilst protesting at senior management’s continuing refusal to negotiate on the new terms and conditions that they have imposed.

“It’s very encouraging to see non-union members supporting UNISON’s campaign to defend Family Friendly Policies at Notting Hill Housing Trust”, said UNISON Regional Organiser, Colin Inniss. “It contradicts the Trust’s claim that most members of staff are happy with imposed change. Unison’s campaign will continue until the Trust realises that cutting family-friendly benefits demoralises staff and has a negative impact on service delivery”.

UNISON’s dispute with Notting Hill Housing Trust is now in its third month. A day of strike action was taken on 15th March; further strike action is planned for May. In an effort to resolve the dispute, UNISON has referred it to ACAS for mediation.

For Further information or comment please contact:

UNISON Regional Organiser, Colin Inniss on 07703 194 127 or C.Inniss@unison.co.uk

Notes for Editors

1. UNISON’s Housing Association Branch represents approximately 3,500 members in the Greater London Region and the South East. UNISON Members at Notting Hill Housing Trust took successful strike action on 15th March.

2. NHHT manages 25,000 homes in London and the South East. According to its own website NHHT has an asset base of £1,317m and an annual turnover of £167m. Group reserves on 2008/2009 totalled £188m and its operating profit was £19.8m. In June 2009 the group absorbed 3 smaller BME housing associations – Presentation, Pathway and Croydon People’s.

3. 14% of staff took paid carers’ leave in 2008/09 at a total cost to the organisation of £40,000. Chief Executive, Kate Davies total pay and reward package for the year 2008 to 31March 2009 was £192,000.

4. Paul Hodgkinson is the Chair of NHHT’s Board. He is also a Trustee of Parenting UK, a national charity that sets the policy for parenting focus in the UK. Respect for cultural diversity and the different needs of men and women within the context of human rights for all, is one of Parenting UK’s key principles.

5. UNISON’s Lunchtime Lobbies of NHHT Head office will take place during the first week of May. 2 days of industrial action will take place at a later date.   Check out here and here

(picture is an artists impression of the new Notting Hill Housing Group proposed headquarters in Kings Cross)

Notting Hill Housing Dispute Protest

Yesterday there was the first of 4 planned protests outside the Headquarters of Notting Hill Housing Group by UNISON members who are furious at their CEO who has attacked family friendly policies and terms.  Non members and agency staff joined the protest.  The next one will start 12.30 today and will continue for rest of the week.  Check out "Altogether Worse" for further details.

Notting Hill Housing Dispute "All Together Now" lunchtime protests!

I'll post on today's first UNISON Notting Hill Housing Group protest later.

But I have never, ever, met so many people, who feel so let down and badly treated by their employer.

They think it is personal. That their CEO, Kate Davies, "hates" her staff and wants to get rid of all who she doesn't like aka those who aren't in the "Kate's Camp". How many times I have heard this term?

What a way to run what is supposed to be a publicly responsible and socially responsive organisation?

Notting Hill Housing Dispute: Lunchtime Protests Tuesday 4 May to Friday 7th

Tomorrow (Tuesday 4 May) there will be the first of 4 lunch time protests, 12-2pm, this week by UNISON members of Notting Hill Housing Group over their Campaign for dignity and respect for workers in the (so-called) “Trust”

This is the latest stage in the official industrial dispute (see here, here and here) between trade union members and the NHHG Chief Executive Officer, Kate Davies, who has imposed savage cuts in family friendly employment policies and terms and conditions.

She continues to refuse to allow UNISON to even speak to the NHHG Board about the dispute or to refer the problem to ACAS for independent mediation. There was a successful one day strike action on March 15 and further strike action is planned.

Please join the protest outside the main NHHG headquarters at Notting Hill Housing

1 Butterwick, Rear of Metro Building, London, W6 8DL. Check map here but the site is within walking distance of both Hammersmith underground stations.

Check out the website “All together Worse” for further details.

Notting Hill Housing Trust: Strike Action Back on!

Following last month’s successful strike UNISON had suspended any further action while trying patiently to negotiate and reach an agreement with Notting Hill Housing Group to resolve the dispute. Despite this act of good faith senior management are still refusing to allow UNISON to even speak to its Board and are still refusing any attempt at mediation via ACAS.

You do wonder what is the point of such nominally “independent” Boards when they are so scared of going against their CEO that they will not even listen to their employee representatives? What is wrong with having genuine two-way conversations? Isn’t it supposed to be “good to talk”? Why do they only listen to their Executive team's hugely expensive "remuneration consultants" - but not their own staff reps???

No wonder so many people believe that governance in our sector is so poor and pathetic. Many Housing Association Boards (not all) are accused of being undemocratic, unresponsive self perpetuating oligarchies controlled by over paid and under supervised CEO’s. Where there are no real or meaningful “checks and balances”.  These organisations will eventually fail. Unless this is changed we will face further “Project Jerusalem's".

The Chief Executive at Notting Hill, £192k per year, £16k per month, £3,692 per week, Kate Davies, has even gone on record that the savage cuts to family friendly policies and staff terms and conditions have not gone far enough!

To come out with such stuff while on such high pay in what is suppose to be a “not for profit” charity proves to me that these people think they are some sort of superior human beings or class above the rest of us mere low wage earning proles.

Check out further background of the dispute here, here and here. Lobbies will take place next week and further significant strike action is being organised.

Housing associations are supposed to be here for the long term. They produce financial plans and projections in great detail for the next 30 years. I don’t think that people understand that perhaps the biggest threat to the long term survival of these organisations is not getting wrong a possible 30 year projected cash flow.  The real risk is the lack of any meaningful or accountable governance in the organisation towards all its stakeholders.

I have always argued that organisations and management teams such as Notting Hill who treat their staff as rubbish will also treat their residents in the same dismissive manner and will have no long term future.

Some more info from UNISON press release:

1. UNISON’s Housing Association Branch represents approximately 3,500 members in the Greater London Region and the South East. UNISON Members at Notting Hill Housing Trust took successful strike action on 15th March.

2. NHHT manages 25,000 homes in London and the South East. According to its own website NHHT has an asset base of £1,317m and an annual turnover of £167m. Group reserves on 2008/2009 totalled £188m and its operating profit was £19.8m. In June 2009 the group absorbed 3 smaller BME housing associations – Presentation, Pathway and Croydon People’s.

3. 14% of staff took paid carers’ leave in 2008/09 at a total cost to the organisation of £40,000. Chief Executive, Kate Davies total pay and reward package for the year 2008 to 31March 2009 was £192,000.

4. Paul Hodgkinson is the Chair of NHHT’s Board. He is also a Trustee of Parenting UK, a national charity that sets the policy for parenting focus in the UK. Respect for cultural diversity and the different needs of men and women within the context of human rights for all, is one of Parenting UK’s key principles.

UNISON London Labour Link says “good bye” to retiring MP Keith Hill

This is a little late but picture is from this month’s Greater London UNISON Labour Link Committee meeting. Former Housing minister and UNISON member Keith Hill gave the Parliamentary report. Keith has now retired as MP for Streatham and spoke very highly of Chuka Umunna who is standing to replace him.

In the Q&A I brought up the Notting Hill Housing Strike and also asked Keith (who is still Chair of Lambeth Homes) if he thinks we need a Labour Party public housing forum in London to win the “Battle of Ideas” over housing policy.

He gave positive but diplomatic answers to both questions.

The committee formally thanked him for his contributions to our committee and wished him well in “retirement”.

In this photo there are 6 members of the committee who are standing as Labour Party council candidates including Louise Couling (8th from left) who is standing against the fascist BNP Barnbrook in Barking and also Rachel Voller (1st left) who is the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Romford.  There was also at least one other PPC in the room at the time.

John Gray: Socialist Unity Pin Up

Well, I suppose there is no thing like bad publicity...and it is in a good cause.

I'll update on the Notting Hill Housing Strike later.

Vote for your favourite Labour achievement

Unions together are running a poll here on your favourite "Labour achievement" in the past decade.

There is a good spread of achievements that all Labour Party affiliated trade unionists should be very,very proud of - I picked "decisive action on the financial crisis". 

That's not to say that there aren't some policies not being listed that I would like to see.  But that is a debate for another time.  Not now.

Now we must rally around the Party and get our people to wake up and  smell the coffee at the simply bloody awful propect of an incoming Tory government. 

We already have a little taster of Tory attitudes to decent terms and conditions for workers.  Time to stop the carping, move on and start organising for the next 4 weeks and prove that we can deliver.  IMO of course.

Notting Hill Strikers at Sadiq Khan MP Parliamentary reception.

Last night Tooting MP Sadiq Khan, who is Minister of Transport and an UNISON member held a reception for local trade union members, Labour party supporters and constituents at the Atlee Room in the House of Commons.

There was a really good turn out with over 150 people attending. London UNISON Labour link sponsored the refreshments. Sadiq had invited Deputy Leader Harriet Harman MP, Home Secretary Alan Johnson MP and Youth Minister Dawn Butler MP as guest speakers.

I was there as Vice-Chair of the London UNISON Labour Link committee and had brought with me two UNISON members from Notting Hill Housing Trust who had been on Strike earlier this month. Strike action is unheard of in our traditionally moderate sector yet members voted 93% in favour to protest at their treatment by the CEO who is trying to destroy family friendly policies at Notting Hill and slash basic staff terms and conditions while paying herself obscene amounts of money and perks (such as £11,000 per year car allowance).

Yesterday we learnt from NHHT senior management that its Board have apparently “refused” to even let UNISON speak to them about its concerns and that they support the boycott of requests for mediation with ACAS! If this is true then you have to question why the NHHT Board is apparently so precious that they are not even willing to even listen to their own workforce express concerns that they are being discriminated against and exploited by their senior management.

This is amazing and can only further damage the reputation and image of the wider sector in the eyes of many people.

There was a Q&A after each speech. I managed to ask a question of Harriet and Alan about what is happening in Notting Hill and attacks by its management on equalities. We will be contacting their Parliamentary offices later today with follow up information.

We also discussed the issue with Sadiq (one of the Strikers is also his constituent) who also agreed to contact the organisation once we brief him properly.

The reception itself was very lively and a good cross section of people. There was some rather silly comments made in the Q&A but I enjoyed the “knockabout” soapbox politics. I cannot believe how complacent and petty some people are at the prospect of a Conservative Government. Turkeys clucking for Christmas! The speakers gave some cracking responses. Sadiq was an excellent host and I am sure he recruited many “foot soldieries” (as Harriet put it) to help him win in the forthcoming election.

It was also of course a good opportunity to build on the lobbying work done over the Notting Hill Housing dispute here and here.

Notting Hill Strike on Dave Hill’s London blog

On Friday Guardian blogger Dave Hill posted here on the dispute, Notting Hill CEO Kate Davies, her close links with Conservative run Hammersmith & Fulham Council and her partner Nick Johnson who just happens to be the CEO of Council owned “Hammersmith & Fulham Homes”.

Dave ponders on the infamous social housing Toryfest “round table discussion” on the pamphlet “Principles for Social Housing Reform” that took place with Kate, Nick, Stephen Greenhalgh, John Moss and Boris's deputy for policing Kit Malthouse and Tory shadow housing minister Grant Shapps's chief of staff Tim Collins.  This pamphlet described social housing as “barracks of the poor” and urges market rents for all tenants and the ending of security of tenure. Or in other words - evicting Grannies whose kids have left home. Very Compassionate Conservatism.

As Dave says “Conclusion? Don't leap to sinister ones: just because people meet to discuss some wide blue sky idea doesn't mean they all find them practical or beguiling. That said, a powerful constellation of Tories and sympathisers with Tory housing policy ideas - and, UNISON would say, Tory management attitudes too - has firmly established itself in Hammersmith and Fulham - just in case that wasn't already crystal clear”.

Nuf said.

Don't forget to check out "All Together Worse" for updates on the dispute.

Presentation Housing Association Strike and Picket Line

Many apologies to UNISON members in Presentation Housing Association for not mentioning the picket outside their headquarters during last week’s strike (see picture).

Presentation is now a subsidy of Notting Hill Housing Trust and staff there face the same anti-carer and anti-family attacks on their terms and conditions as in the (joke) “parent” company.

Latest news is that talks with Notting Hill management and unions over the dispute will recommence this coming Thursday.

Good!