Action For Children - "Well run charties do not treat their staff with contempt"

UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentice, attacks the Charity "Action For Children" after 73.5% of members vote for strike action.

Believe me, for Charity workers to vote this way must mean that they are being treated with complete and utter disdain by their senior management.

Is it right that the CEO of this Charity is paid nearly £164,000 per year when they haven't yet implemented a Living Wage policy for all staff?

The unfairness of senior managers giving themselves pay rises (don't believe the guff about "benchmarking") while cutting the real pay of their junior staff, year in and year out, sticks in the gullet of members, who are passionate for their jobs but simply can't afford to live on the money they get.

It is especially damning when you have a Children's charity whose staff struggle to earn enough to  feed and clothe their own children adquately .

If you look at their accounts (see above for 2015) you will see the number of highly paid jobs paying between £60,000 per year and £160,000 per year has jumped to 46.  In 2013 there was "only" 26. 

Charities are under pressure not only for having maverick Chief Executives and for unethical fund raising but also for being too often run as a senior management's "mates' club".  When, and if, they trouble themselves to consider their employees, the attitude is, "as long as I'm alright Jack, and sod the little people". 

"Charity is a cold grey loveless thing..."

Well said Clem.  Remember there is a difference between rich people doling out charity to please their fancy or conscience and working people showing solidarity to others with their widow's mites.

UPDATE: its been pointed out this this quote is a mis-attribution. It was actually said by Attlee's biographer Frances Beckett summarising his views. This is the quote I think he was referring to - it still all makes sense to me.

 “In a civilised community, although it may be composed of self-reliant individuals, there will be some persons who will be unable at some period of their lives to look after themselves, and the question of what is to happen to them may be solved in three ways – they may be neglected, they may be cared for by the organised community as of right, or they may be left to the goodwill of individuals in the community. The first way is intolerable, and as for the third: Charity is only possible without loss of dignity between equals. A right established by law, such as that to an old age pension, is less galling than an allowance made by a rich man to a poor one, dependent on his view of the recipient’s character, and terminable at his caprice.”- The Social Worker 1920

#TUC13 Congress: Opposing Union busting Charity Mencap

This morning Congress voted overwhelmingly against an otherwise worthy motion 36.  Which called for an enquiry into the premature deaths of people with learning difficulties. 

The movers of the motion had been asked to remit but had decided against this.

The reason for the opposition was that for some reason in this otherwise important motion there was statement "congratulating" the charity Mencap. 

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis on behalf of the General Council spoke to Congress about how Mencap was a leading advocate of the Government plans to close 32 Rempoly factories which cost 1000s of jobs. It also has a poor track record on employment standards and refuses to recognise trade unions. 

A disabled delegate who was a former Remploy worker also spoke against the motion, accusing Mencap of “help hammer the nail” by writing open letters to the press which pushed for the ending of factory based supported employment leaving 2500 disabled workers on the scrap heap. Mencap was accused of betraying  vulnerable workers for its own self gain. This speaker received a standing ovation from the hall at the end of his speech.

Mencap was described as an anti trade union employer which also refused to recognise GMB members in former Southern Cross projects which is now subject to a 3 week court case in November. 

Another disabled delegate whose relation had helped set up Mencap said that it was an organisation that was not of people with learning difficulties but says it speaks for them.  When challenged about this a senior manager said "you wouldn’t let cats and dogs run the RSPCA?. They are viewed as "asset strippers" or have jumped into bed with the Government to win contracts.

Barnardo's Pension Betrayal

Some things do make you simply despair. Today I learnt that the Charity Barnardo's has announced that it will be closing its defined benefit pension scheme for it's staff without consultation.

Of course it is now back tracking rapidly since UNISON has reminded it that it is legally obliged to consult with its staff before making such a decision.

But how on earth have we come to this place that a previously respected national charity is not only depriving its staff of a decent pension scheme but is planning for them to retire and die in miserable poverty?

Let us get certain things straight from the beginning. Firstly, Barnardo's do not have to close their career average defined pension scheme. It will not get rid of any pension fund deficit since that will remain and now become far more expensive to service. It will arguably make the existing deficit worse and without doubt, cost Barnardo's more money to close it rather than keep it open.

So why on earth are they wasting charitable and public money on closing their scheme?

Not only that but even the Government has accepted that the way pensions schemes traditionally calculate the cost of their pensions is completely nonsense due to outdated and ridiculous accounting measures. The Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has promised to change this and there is currently an on going enquiry into this matter which some commentators believe could reduce the size of pension fund deficits by 40%?

What is also particularly sickening is that Barnardo's is proposing to offer its staff being kicked out of its existing pension scheme, the poverty pension plan currently offered to new staff members. It will only offer 4% or 6% matched employer pension contributions, which are wholly inadequate and will mean that many of their staff, particularly the low paid will retire and die in poverty.

Is this what they really want? What does the Charities trustees think of this?

If you check the accounts there are 8,366 Barnardo staff who earn less than 59,999 per year. The overwhelming majority of course are on much less than £59k. There are 35 staff who earn £60k - 159k per year, who no doubt earn so much, they will be able to properly fund their pension schemes.

The top earners are the ones who made the decision to close the traditional scheme.

This is all just wrong and totally unnecessary. Barnardo's should be engaged in genuine and meaningful negotiations with UNISON over these issues.

If they don't then, it will just further damage and even help destroy their reputation.