Further Strike Action in Newham over sacked Michael Gavan

On Thursday there will be another strike by UNISON members in Newham, East London over the sacking by the Council of their branch Chair, Michael Gavan.

Amazingly Michael was dismissed for representing his trade union members in disciplinary hearings (and in doing so “not acting in the best interests of the Council”) and convening a stewards meeting over privatisation without permission.

The branch is asking for supporters to join the picket lines before work on Thursday. There will also be a lunchtime rally in the Hartley Centre, next to the Bingo Hall in 267 Barking Road, E6.

There is also a rally at the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) evening to support Michael, as well as the Unison strikers at Fremantle, Barnet, and Karen Reissman, sacked Unison activist from Manchester. This is at 7.00 p.m. in Committee Room 9, House of Commons (Westminster tube). If you're going, allow time to get through the House of Commons security

More information from the Newham branch website - www.newhamunison.com or telephone 020 8555-9351.

The “absolute nightmares” Where should they live?

“Authorities’ secrecy puts staff in peril” For the 2nd week in a row, Inside Housing magazine has had a front page story on staff safety. Talk about London buses – you wait for ages then you get one after another! I posted last week on their survey that found that 73% of front line staff have feared for their safety while at work. They printed a letter from me this week on the importance of an effective safety management system.

However, this week’s story actually has a wider appeal than just being of interest to hard pressed Housing association (or RSL’s) staff and their safety at work. The article claims that many Council’s deliberately withhold details of violent and dangerous applicants from housing associations, because it is feared that the RSL would turn down the application if they knew about their history.

One RSL only found out that one applicant was an arsonist “they must have known would be an absolute nightmare” by a chance warning by the local Police. Others complained that female staff are sent out by themselves with applicants to view properties, unaware that the applicant is a convicted sex offender.

Personally I would doubt that a Council would usually deliberately withhold information. Rather in my experience they will not have gathered the information properly in the first place. In most Council's you find that Housing, Education and Social work departments will not know or share information with each other about known potentially violent service users. Never mind giving this information to outside bodies such as RSL’s. This is despite the murder of staff in the past by violent offenders, who were known to pose risks, but the system did not pass the information down.

Many RSL’s do not even ask Council’s if they know of any risks and there are no guarantees that even if they are told the information that this is given to the front line staff that need to know.

The whole situation is a mess. Usually management will try to blame “Data Protection Act” (DPA) or “client confidentiality”. When there are in practice, clear exemptions in the DPA for protecting staff and providing information is securely passed over and retained, there should be no inappropriate breach of confidentiality.

Making safety an absolute priority and having in place a rigorous safety management system will resolve the issue of staff safety.

However, the “Inside Housing” article is actually based upon some very interesting research on “Problematic tenancies” by Bristol University on behalf of Shelter, the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation. They are probably a little upset with “Inside Housing” since the report is only a “draft”. However, it is obvious that there are really serious problems to be addressed.

It appears quite clear that in many parts of the country, RSL’s are refusing to house applicants with a history of anti-social behaviour. Perhaps this is understandable, however while a Council may have transferred all its housing stock to a RSL it still retains the legal responsibility to re-house someone if they are found to be “statutory homeless”. 80,000 families in England alone last year. A tiny but not insignificant minority of whom will have members who have “challenging behaviour”.

There are other issues such as due to what’s called “section 106” agreements, residents who have paid substantial sums for their homes are living next door to RSL tenants who need support (and often won’t get it) so they will complain about them. Also, a RSL had built a new block of 12 general needs flats and found out that the Council was planning to offer 8 of them to applicants who had known alcohol abuse problems. Think about it.

If RSL’s are refusing to house people that Councils have to re-house by law then what is the answer? Do we go down the Frank Field MP route of “sin bins” under motorways?

Going to work can make you sick

As already mentioned I was off for most of last week with the dreaded lurgy. However, I used some of the time to catch up on my reading of the “Safety and Health Practitioner”, which is the house mag of IOSH. Read a very interesting article (July 07) by researcher Zara Whysall that “Presenteeism” at work is a “larger drain on productivity than either absenteeism or short-term disability”. “Which can have potentially catastrophic effects on both individual and organisational health”! So much for “Sick note Britain”

It concludes that it is better for the individual (as well as the organisation) to stay at home and recover rather come into work and infect everyone else (and I suppose anyone sitting near them on the buses or train). They also tend to recover more quickly at home.

Fair enough this seems common sense– most of us have come across the saying “Coughs and sneezes spread diseases...” (This was first put on public information service posters in World War Two)

Controversially, she also thought that research showed that workers who come into work despite being unwell may mean that their illness is unnoticed and is allowed to become more serious. Research into male civil servants showed “.....those that did not take any sick leave over the three year study period were more likely to experience serious coronary events than those unhealthy employees with moderate levels of sickness absenteeism”.

You can imagine this happening in practice. Someone who is so worried say about losing their job if they are sick, would come into work and ignores chest pains and other early signs of heart disease. Instead of getting the condition controlled by timely treatment they carry on working and they have a serious attack.

Organisations which have too harsh sickness policies could actually being making things worse not only for their staff but also their own bottom-line.

Letter about Tory political infidelities

My apologies for not posting this link sooner - an excellent post from Labour & Capital about the investment fund managers Fidelity, who unlike all other major British managers are significant financial contributors to the Conservative Party. Over £320,000 in the last three years.

Tom P (the author) and his wife, have an ISA investment account with them. He has written this letter asking why they are donating money to the Tories, are they planning future contributions and do they disclose these donations when they bid for business in Conservative controlled Council pension fund authorities?

I would argue that they should disclose this fact before bidding for business for any local authority not just ones with a Tory majority? A Council pension scheme panel will probably still have Tory members present even if they do not control the authority. I am sure that they will not want to be put in a potentially compromising position. Also, vulnerable without any such declaration of interest by Fidelity would be any Council officers present or their professional advisors if they themselves are Conservative Party members or supporters? Actually I’m sure this information will be gratefully received in the Labour heartlands.

Anyone who has an investment or personal pension plan with Fidelity should consider sending the same letter. Also check to see if your insurance or pension scheme employ Fidelity as their fund managers. If so, you should consider writing to your plan administrators or trustees asking them about the wisdom of employing such partisan managers.

Tom and wife point out that if Fidelity continues to give money to the Tories they will move their savings. However, usual health warnings about taking appropriate advice before you actually change any such investments apply.

A letter to Fidelity

The letter below has gone in the post this morning. My wife and I have been with Fidelity for about 6 years now. We have an ISA we set up to help pay off our mortgage, so we were intending to stick with them for the long run. We are therefore both really p***ed off that we may have to go through the hassle of changing fund manager because the one we chose prioritises making partisan political donations over the concerns of its customers. I hope they reply saying they are going to halt the donations. But if they won't stop doing it we feel we have no option but to move our savings elsewhere.

Fidelity International,
Oakhill House,
130 Tonbridge Road,
Hildenborough,
Tonbridge,
Kent TN11 9DZ

My account Number: XXX My Adviser: XXXI

I was concerned to learn from the Electoral Commission website that Fidelity International has donated £95,000 to the Conservative Party so far during 2007. I am not a Conservative Party supporter, but I do not believe that a fund management business like Fidelity should make donations to any political party.

As you are no doubt aware most institutional investors will vote against resolutions at companies’ AGMs where authority is sought to make party political donations. Indeed party political donations are rare amongst listed companies these days.

It is therefore somewhat surprising to see an institutional investor make such donations itself.

As a long-standing Fidelity customer I am very concerned by these donations. I would therefore be grateful if you could answer the follow questions.

1. What is the rationale for making donations to the Conservative Party?

2. Does Fidelity intend to make similar party political donations in future?

3. Does Fidelity disclose these donations when this is a potential conflict of interest (ie when presenting to Conservative-controlled local authority pension funds)?

I also wish to make clear that if Fidelity does intend to continue making partisan political donations I am likely to move my family’s savings to another fund manager.

Yours sincerely

PFI firm run by Tory Peer fund SWP "Fighting Unions"

Just when you thought that fact could not get any stranger than fiction with regard to the Diss-respect farrago, it appears that their general secretary, John Rees (pre-split) accepted a dubious $10,000 company cheque from a Dubai construction company, Khansahed Civil Engineering.

This is owned by Interserve, who are a leading Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contractor, chaired by Tory Peer and former Head of the John Major’s policy unit, Lord Norman Blackwell.

It was I suppose pretty amazing was that this cheque had been previously been sent back by Galloway (unheard of him to refuse money!). However, apparently he suspected a “sting" by an undercover reporter.

The money was later used by Rees to cover a £5,000 loss made by the SWP/Respect backed “Organising for a Fighting Trade Union”. There may have been nothing “illegal” about this payment but it is particularly shameful of the SWP who have constantly jeered at the Labour Party and other democractic political partes who have dug themselves into big holes over funding. For them to now deliberately take money via a company cheque made out by a foreign construction company on behalf of trade unions? A company who in the UK openly makes money out of privatising British schools and hospitals?

I wonder what it is like to be a member of the SWP at this time. Their activist's excuse may be that they are “Lions led by Donkeys” but in reality are they just “Sheep being led to Slaughter”?

Another Hat tip to Ted Jeory at the East London Advertiser

“A bad day for Rights at Work”

No Justice for agency workers I’m afraid. The European Union “Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council” (also known for some reason as Europe’s Social Affairs council) met yesterday. I posted on Wednesday about media reports that a deal had been struck.

Apparently enough member states had agreed to finally give agency workers in the EU employment rights and to put an end to a two tier “terms and conditions” workforce. Agency staff would be on broadly similar terms as permanent staff. There is majority voting on this issue.

However in a classic EU fudge – the decision has been put off again (I quote) “Having in mind the fact that this proposal is still very recent, as well as the sensitive nature of these directives to some member states and the importance of exploring all attempts to reach an agreement as large as possible before final decision, the Council agreed that the best option at this moment was to postpone a decision, in order to further pursue the dialogue”.

Naturally TUC General Secretary, Brendon Barber is furious “'This is a bad day for rights at work across Europe, but especially in the UK.'

It is very disappointing that there has been no progress on the agency working Directive. There is real anger among unions today that the UK Government played the pivotal role in blocking progress today on this modest measure to improve workplace justice. '

Contrary to business scare-mongering, this Directive would not stop agencies providing temporary staff to employers who need them. What it would have done was both make it more difficult for employers to undercut wages and conditions and help slow the growth of a two-tier workforce. But unions will not give up the campaign to deliver justice for agency workers......"

The next Council meeting is not until I think February next year. The T&G Unite have a good site on this matter.

OK we need to think on the next step forward. Agency workers rights is still a "Warwick agreement" and Labour Party manifesto commitment. How to lobby and pressure the government to do the decent thing next year?

"Arrogant superior young toffs...”

“The arrogant, superior young toffs who lead the Conservative Party, neither of whom have done a serious day's work in their life... David Cameron was executive at Carlton Television which lost over a billion pounds while he was there. I take no lectures from that young man about business competence. ...Nor can we blame Gordon Brown for the sub-prime disaster in the United States of America or the recklessness of bankers.”

This was my crimbo present come early from Paul Myners on BBC1 Question Time
last week. According to today's Professional Pensions the Tories have now made an official complaint about Paul’s comments. He is the Chair of the government’s “Personal Accounts Delivery Body” PADB.

This is actually one of the most important governmental bodies you have never heard of – hopefully, soon up to 10 million Brits will be members of this “National pension scheme” which for the first time will oblige firms to contribute to their workers pension future (there are the usual “get out” clauses). The PADB should result in millions of people being brought out of poverty in retirement.

This is a really vital body and I suspect (hope) that while Paul was a probably a little unwise in his comments, as Chair of the PADB it will soon blow over. Part of his charm is that he is a bit of a maverick at times.

To me it shows how sensitive the Tories are to the justifiable accusation about Cameron that he is a “out of touch toff”

Hopefully, at worse Paul will just have his knuckles rapped. He is probably one of the most respected businessman of our time - chairman of the Guardian Media Group, the Low Pay Commission (which sets the minimum wage and advises the government on its implementation), and chair of the trustees at the Tate; a member of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England. Previously been Chairman of Marks & Spencer, and an Executive Director at NatWest; Trustee of the Brownite think tank The Smith Institute and has been dubbed "Gordon Brown's favourite businessman"; He is also part of the management team put together by US private equity house JC Flowers which is bidding to take control of Northern Rock.

He has written to the Tories pointing out he appeared on the programme in a personal capacity.He wrote: "I should also add that you make no reference in your letter to two other occasions on the same programme when I was deeply critical of government policy and actions. No mention was made of PADA or pensions in my description or during the programme."

I have meet Paul at various pension conferences and reminded him that Tower Hamlets pension scheme had sacked him (he was head of Gartmore Fund Managers at the time) in the past. Which he took in good part and described that occasion as the “worse day of his life” (joke). Of course being a staffside observer and not allowed to be a full voting member of the scheme I was able to blame everyone else for this decision!

NB - I thought Labour Employment & Welfare Minister Caroline Flint was very,very good at QT

"LOGO 'NO GO' FOR UNISON'S JOHN"

Hat tip to East London Advertiser Deputy Editor, Ted Jeory, in his “Trial by Jeory” Column last week.

I couldn’t possibly comment.

“ALTHOUGH better now, Tower Hamlets council's press office has, over the years, developed a well-earned reputation for control-freakery.

But judging from the following tale, they're 'little angels' compared to their cousins at Newham.

John Gray, a Tower Hamlets Unison official who lives in West Ham, runs an excellent and thoughtful blog site. Last Thursday, he posted a comment attacking Newham council for sacking his union colleague and Respect member Michael Gavan.

To illustrate the comment, he included an image of Newham council's extremely dull logo.

Within days, Ian Tompkins, Newham's communications chief, fired John the following email: "We've noticed on your blog site there is a reproduction of our council logo. I cannot trace any request from you for permission to use this so would ask that you remove it immediately."

In his reply, John expressed "surprise that senior managers spend time scouring the blogsphere on the lookout for errant Newham council logos."

He added: "I am not sure that this is a good use of my council tax.

"I have replaced the offending logo with a photo taken from a public place. I assume that this is OK? If not please let me know."

As they say, good work fella!

Just to update about Michael - there will be a hearing at Stratford Employment Tribunal on December 14 to hear UNISON solicitors argue for what is called “interim relief” for Michael. What this hearing will be asked to decide is “whether or not” there is a case to answer, that Michael was sacked due to his trade union activities. If the tribunal decide there is - then Newham Council will have to continue to pay his wages until there is a full tribunal hearing on the matter. This could be a year or so.

Justice for Agency Workers?

Good to read in the Times On-line today that exploited agency workers may finally be given some protection under an EU directive and no longer treated as 3rd class citizens.

Details are a little unclear but I suspect that “The Times” is scaremongering as usual over the suggestion that agency workers will be getting “full rights” after only 6 weeks. It takes a year for permanent staff to be given protection from unfair dismissal so I can’t see agency staff being given greater rights than permanent.

I hope that it is intended to put an end to a two tier “terms and conditions” workforce and that agency staff should be on “broadly similar” terms as permanent staff. I cannot for the life of me work out why anyone apart from agency bosses would be opposed to this? We gave part time and long term directly employed temps the same rights years ago. The world did not end. The harsh facts of the matter are that many agency workers are treated like dirt by their employers and something simply needs to be done about it.

Also, we see the CBI are up to their usual dirty tricks by claiming that up to “250,000” workers will lose their jobs if this directive is implemented! Yeah, just like the millions of jobs they forecast will be lost if there was a minimum wage.

It is, to say the least, “disappointing” that the Labour government is apparently trying to delay the changes. I can understand why they feel that they have to keep up this “Fairness not Favours” balancing act on employment issues. Labour wants (and needs) the support of “middle England” as well as the unions. However, this is 100% a fundamental fairness and social justice issue. Many agency jobs are not on real “temporary” assignments. They are just cheap and easy to get rid of. Millions of vulnerable British workers having to put up with low wages, no employment tenure and no sickness or pension benefits. The exchequer is being robbed out of billions in lost PAYE taxation and national insurance payments from bogus so-called self employment. In Tower Hamlets Council most of the housing caretakers are agency staff on minimum wage, no sick pay, no overtime rates, no employment protection and of course, no pensions. How on earth can anyone survive on £5.52 per hour in inner London?

To be fair to the government they say they are committed to bringing in rights for agency workers (its also I think an outstanding commitment from the Warwick agreement?) but say they “are worried” that the current proposals are badly written and could harm employment. I think these worries are overdone and exaggerated.

Maybe this is a vision thing for Gordon? It is also electorally clear “red water” that we ought to exploit for all its worth. The Tories are of course opposed to any such change.

Millions of agency workers could see tangible real benefits from a Labour government – pounds in their pocket, money if they become ill and money towards a pension for when they grow old. Genuine, real short term employment needs and flexibility will not suffer and no doubt there will still remain a large agency sector.

However what we can get rid of is 19th century Dickensian employment practices that have no place in a 21st century that should be led by principals of fairness and social justice (and BTW – a century of Labour Party governments with clear majorities?)

Unionlearn – TUC Education on-line

Tonight, despite a bad case of the lurgy I’ve started (a bit late) the TUC Pension “On-Line” training course. I haven’t really done any on-line education beforehand so I am interested to see how I get on. I have always been fan of traditional learning techniques (“face to face” classes). However, things change and I probably wouldn’t have the time to do such a course if it wasn’t on line.

The course has two parts. There is firstly a compulsory module on “Getting ready for E-Learning”. Which will bring us up to speed on how to “learn on the net” Then the Pensions course will start in January. There seems a good mix of other students and my email inbox has been quite busy. The course is being run by the Merseyside Trade Union Education Unit.

There is a range of information about trade union courses (traditional classroom, distance learning and “online”) at the unionlearn website.

Many trade union activists including myself see workplace education and in particular union learning representatives as being key to the future of the movement. This is what even HR thinks of learning reps potential.

I’ll see how things pan out. So far so good.