Author Topic: "With Mallinson a fore-thought" - Half-Truths Exposed As Domiciliary Care Team Faces Axe  (Read 48381 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
This statement was handed to me by a very upset Unison member this afternoon.

Readers may wish to read this Adver article: Disgusted at service cuts which helps toplce this statement in context.

Quote
Statement From Ann-Marie Black UNISON Steward I Home
Care Worker.

UNISON wishes to respond to the article printed on Monday 28th February 2011 in the Evening Advertiser.

Councillor Mallinson talks about giving members of the public the facts , however we believe the members of the public are entitled to the truth.

A council management consultation took place in November 2009. The aim was to restructure the home care department to enable the Council to run the service more efficiently and cost effectively.

The model the council choose to follow was "The Banbury ReEnablement Service" (working with people over a short period of time after falls/strokes etc to get the service users to do as much for themselves so they didn't become dependant on long - term care). 

To date no re- enablement work has been given to the department.  Instead the work was tendered out into the "New Social Enterprise".

Re-enablement posts were advertised to home care workers in June/July 2010 for 22 hours per week. However the council advertised the posts at an incorrect grade and hours; which was a barrier for predominately 30-37 hour workers to apply , as they could not afford a massive cut in pay and hours.  Despite this, 9 care staff did apply for the posts, as they feared the in-house contract would end on 31st March 2011. Staff were then given 3D-hour posts on appointment instead of the advertised 22 hours, again grossly unfair treatment.

This meant the service was reduced by 9 staff and another 4 post holders who where retired on the grounds of age. None of these staff were replaced , yet the contracted hours were not reduced to reflect this.

Instead of Councillor Mallinson trying to persuade the electorate into believing that the workforce was not pulling its weight, we suggest as a Councillor he should be tackling the anagement
that allowed this situation to happen which has been a complete waste of tax payers money, for which Councillor Mallinson is ultimately responsible for.

Councillor Mallinson states that no workers should fear for their jobs, however some staff have been offered part-time posts that again will equate to a huge drop in income, or multiple 9 hour posts that back to back and do not give the required rest time and do not meet the working time directive. This is a double whammy in reducing costs as it will leave some members in poverty which the state will have to pick up, so not much efficiency in the long term, just more people on the dole or claiming benefits to supplement their income.

The care workers are not responsible for this so called "poor productivity" but the Council is responsible for wasting taxpayer's money and making poor decisions. From 1st January - 2nd February, the commissioners have only requested six referrals to the team . So how can we deliver a service of 1800 hours per week, if we are not given the work?

Councillor Mallinson states the service costs £45 per hour, when in fact the true cost is £37 per hour. He goes on to say that the private sector will deliver the same quality service at £15 per hour.  If he took the time to read the Starfish report, it clearly states no homecare service can be delivered with quality or meet standards for less than £25 per hour and the reasons the private sector providers will deliver for the cost of £15 per hour include:

• The frontline carer's will have their wages cut and mileage allowance reduced.

• They do not allow for travel time between service users; which can equate to 3hours and more per day , resulting in the time taken from the service user.

• No pension costs (although it should be noted that the average local government homecare worker will only get an annual pension of £3,000 - £4,000 per annum - hardly gold plated).

• They do not invest in their staff (the turnover of staff in the private sector is huge as workers can't stick the terms and conditions)

• Very few private sector providers offer sick pay (this leads to staff working whilst sick and infecting sick and vulnerable service users even further).
 
• When jobs are cancelled due to service users going into hospital for example, the care worker does not get paid.  Again, I will state this is not the fault of the care workers themselves this is due to the terms and conditions that they have to work under from the private sector companies to enable them to make a profit.

As UNISON presented in a supplementary question to full council on 17th February 2011:


"Please could you tell us why the Council will not work with the Trade Union and our members to provide a more efficient and
cost effective service; which will not impact on quality or vulnerable people and will not result in the out sourcing of the In house
home care service.

We are loyal dedicated staff who care for and care about the people who use our services. We are frontline workers who
deliver this vital service and are very surprised that we have never been asked for ideas. We have many of them but have never
been listened to before".

And, Councillor Mallinson what we do in our own time is tell the public what the Council do not want them to know.



   


The cabinet of Swindon Borough Council is meeting tonight and I'll be interested to see whether the leader of Labour group, Cllr Derique Montaut, and Cllr Andy Harrison, (Penhills only Liberal Democrat Cllr), will give Councillor Mallinson the grilling he richly deserves.

I expect to be disappointed though, all three are firm friends and at least two of them have funny handshakes.




Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Gender: Male
Swindon Council has a smoke screen shrouding this Cllr Mallinson objective. He is facing criticism on all sides in this matter and from Cllrs in the Conservatives:  http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8894678.Council_criticised_over_home_care_cuts/

10,000 signatures is a lot of signatures.

All posts on this forum are my own opinion and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline 20Eyes

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Too fast, too deep, blah blah blah
Hang on a minute:

Quote
Among the “inefficiencies” he has found in the department is 365 hours in wages paid to staff for attending trade union meetings in six months last year

WTF are we doing paying for 45.6 working days of staff attending :censored: union meetings in just six months?? That's one and a half months out of six spent with their comrades doing :censored: all apart from trying to work out how they can do even less.

At an hourly rate of £45ph, that means the taxpayer spent £16,425 in six months to send these people to union camp.

Seriously, how is that even possible?
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Potter Stewart

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse

It's probably made possible by Cllr Mallinson borrowing cllr Bluh's Clownculator to tot his figures up.

Offline bobwright

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Summarised below is what one expert is saying about the handling of the change.

Referring to:

"Key emerging work streams within the programme which include shared decision making, community accountability and participation, multi-channel delivery services, visibility and availability of information, and the technical infrastructure to support greater access to personal information, and the efficiency and safety of  clinical practice."

It has been stated that:

With regard to the still unspecified (and with less than five weeks prior to its risky launch for hundreds of employees) and unaccountable proposed 'social enterprise' for community health and adult social care in Swindon, I suggest that the local PCT and Swindon Borough Council have signally failed the public in the "shared decision making, community accountability and participation, ... visibility and availability of information" referred to above.

For example, there has been absolutely no sanction against those involved for failure to keep their own promises as to revealing the results of their own employees' views, let alone adequately consulting the wider community. Those promises on the employee survey were set out in Council Cabinet papers in the last quarter of 2010.

Unless local people and local bodies representing local health and social care interests continue to question their high-handedness there is probably little hope at all that any future services over which the PCT has influence for now will ever be publicly accountable and involve the views of anybody at all without its own boardroom. Of course, the days of the PCT itself are numbered as part of the planned United Kingdom Government changes.

It seems to me that there will be very little point in a local Health Watch even existing (transformed from a Local Involvement Network) if this patronising and secretive mode of operation of ignoring accountability and the public will continue to be the norm. Therefore I suggest that Swindon LINK take a more robust role in future - without being hostile or mischievous - in considering the accountabilities of health and adult social care services in the Swindon area. Public services without public accountability cannot be the correct road.

This is an extract from a letter of the Chief Executive of the National Health Service in England, dated 17 February 2011 sent to chairs and chief executives and chairs of NHS organisations, and chief executives of all local authorities in England - including Swindon Primary Care Trust and Swindon Borough Council - about the ongoing changes in the NHS and social services in England:


Offline 20Eyes

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Too fast, too deep, blah blah blah

It's probably made possible by Cllr Mallinson borrowing cllr Bluh's Clownculator to tot his figures up.

I suspect you're probably (have to be?) right, but this claim is something I believe should be substantiated. It's not far short of theft, if true.

If it's a lie, then it's resignation-worthy as it's equally as close to being a false accusation of theft.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Potter Stewart

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse

I can't make the cabinet meeting tonight,so hopefully a TS member who is attending will put that question to cllr Mallinson.

I'd like to see Monty transcending his personal friendships with cabinet members and asking some pertinent questions of them, instead of being an appeaser to them.

Offline Bogomil

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Hello !
Having googled the report mentioned in Ann-Marie Black’s letter I can only seem to find the following.

The report which was called “The Elusive Costs Of Homecare” was originally written in 2002 by a company called Starfish Consulting for an organisation called the London ADSS Benchmarking Club.

Been unsuccessful in googling either Starfish Consulting or the London ADSS Benchmarking Club. Although I can find references to the report, the main one is an appendix summary within what looks like a Unison commissioned report for Tower Hamlets

http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/docs/staff/4356.doc

It might be pertinent to know a bit more about both Starfish Consulting and the London ADSS Benchmarking Club before commenting on the validity of the report and its findings. I hope other TS members have better luck than me as I would like to see a copy of the original report and know a little more about those who commissioned it.

Without being in anyway partisan, we all know how reports can be written in favour or against depending on the original terms of reference or the outcome being sought by those commissioning the report.

That being said, as Ann-Marie Black stated in her letter, the cost comparison of £37 against £15 is something that needs further explanation and investigation.

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Hang on a minute:

Quote
Among the “inefficiencies” he has found in the department is 365 hours in wages paid to staff for attending trade union meetings in six months last year

WTF are we doing paying for 45.6 working days of staff attending :censored: union meetings in just six months?? That's one and a half months out of six spent with their comrades doing :censored: all apart from trying to work out how they can do even less.

At an hourly rate of £45ph, that means the taxpayer spent £16,425 in six months to send these people to union camp.

Seriously, how is that even possible?

Hang on a minute I thought the poster had worked in the public sector? Its clear that in the public sector unions have to attend equalities meetings, workshops training and monitoring and have to be involved in H & S and also attend joint union meetings and other managerial meetings. All this is directed by the management (the council) so if this applies to the union it applies to council managers. SBC has lots of meetings any you will know that if you worked in the public sector as you have claimed in other posts.

Also if its 365 hours is it only at £8.05p?
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Having googled the report mentioned in Ann-Marie Black’s letter I can only seem to find the following.

The report which was called “The Elusive Costs Of Homecare” was originally written in 2002 by a company called Starfish Consulting for an organisation called the London ADSS Benchmarking Club.

Been unsuccessful in googling either Starfish Consulting or the London ADSS Benchmarking Club. Although I can find references to the report, the main one is an appendix summary within what looks like a Unison commissioned report for Tower Hamlets

http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/docs/staff/4356.doc

It might be pertinent to know a bit more about both Starfish Consulting and the London ADSS Benchmarking Club before commenting on the validity of the report and its findings. I hope other TS members have better luck than me as I would like to see a copy of the original report and know a little more about those who commissioned it.

Without being in anyway partisan, we all know how reports can be written in favour or against depending on the original terms of reference or the outcome being sought by those commissioning the report.

That being said, as Ann-Marie Black stated in her letter, the cost comparison of £37 against £15 is something that needs further explanation and investigation.



Bogo

As you appear to indicate in previous posts that you somehow communicate  with Andy, perhaps you can ask him for a copy of the report he saw?
Quote
Coun Andy Harrison (Lib Dem, Penhill) said: “I’ve seen a report where the in-house service wasn’t even meeting 50 per cent efficiency.

“That’s horrendous. That’s something else we need to know and understand.”


That appears quite a statement to have made at the meeting on a report no one on TS has had sight of? or is this a typical example of Liberal floweriness?
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8894678.Council_criticised_over_home_care_cuts/

To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline 20Eyes

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Too fast, too deep, blah blah blah
Hang on a minute I thought the poster had worked in the public sector?

I did, but I wasn't paid by taxpayers to sit around in union meetings.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Potter Stewart

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse

Let's start with the most recent & relevant-to-Swindon report to which Bogomil refers, i.e, the one Cllr Harrison has seen.

Where is it, who authored it and what, exactly, does it say?

I think 65 soon to be sacked SBC employees,(and we as their employers), have a moral right to see what councillors are saying about them in (secret?) reports.

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female

Let's start with the most recent & relevant-to-Swindon report to which Bogomil refers, i.e, the one Cllr Harrison has seen.

Where is it, who authored it and what, exactly, does it say?

I think 65 soon to be sacked SBC employees,(and we as their employers), have a moral right to see what councillors are saying about them in (secret?) reports.

That is a good point what is more relevant a 2002 Starchamber consultancy report or a Cllr Mallinson SBC report that comes out and proves Cllr Short
Quote
At the meeting on Thursday night, Coun John Short (Con, Highworth) demanded to know how private carers can be so much cheaper than council ones, since both get paid roughly the same hourly wage.

“Something is not right somewhere,” he said.

“If we’re going to make decisions in this way, then we need the full extent of what’s happening, not a smokescreen.”
is wrong to call it a smoke screen shrouding this whole episode.

To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline Simon

  • Jnr. Jedi
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
    • Swindon Climate Action Network
Hang on a minute:

Quote
Among the “inefficiencies” he has found in the department is 365 hours in wages paid to staff for attending trade union meetings in six months last year

WTF are we doing paying for 45.6 working days of staff attending :censored: union meetings in just six months?? That's one and a half months out of six spent with their comrades doing :censored: all apart from trying to work out how they can do even less.

At an hourly rate of £45ph, that means the taxpayer spent £16,425 in six months to send these people to union camp.

Seriously, how is that even possible?

I've recently read a very good book by Ben Goldacre, called "Bad Science", which looks at the way in which interest groups cherry pick the research projects which support their own view, whilst presenting the results without giving the readers any access to the data from which they drew their conclusions. I strongly recommend it  O0

So, 20, could you please supply a reference to the data which makes you think that we (the taxpayer) are paying our public servants for 1 and a half months in every six to participate in union meetings?
We are all in this together, but some of us are more in it than others (with apologies to George Orwell)

Offline 20Eyes

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Too fast, too deep, blah blah blah
So, 20, could you please supply a reference to the data which makes you think that we (the taxpayer) are paying our public servants for 1 and a half months in every six to participate in union meetings?


It comes from the Adver article that both Steve Wakefield and Ringer have already linked to:

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8894678.Council_criticised_over_home_care_cuts/

I don't 'think' it's what happening, it's what we have been told is happening. I can't quite believe we'd be paying carers to sit around in union camp for 365 hours out of a six month period, which would means it's little wonder that those who need care aren't receiving it.

Hence my belief that the data should be challenged and verified.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Potter Stewart

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
20 "I can't quite believe we'd be paying carers to sit around in union camp for 365 hours out of a six month period"

Back to basic's here, one person might have a very sore backside, because if it's the 365 hours refers to one person that is 2 hours a day, every day for 6 months?
It might refer to one person attending day conferences or seminars, that would be 60 in 6 months?
Travel time could be added to that. Or the figure might just be wrong.
Someone posted that this might be Union meetings or it might mean meetings at which the person/s where there as union reps. 
I always find that although I am at places representing one group I pick up info/learn things that is useful to many other groups and individuals.
so before jumping at the figure I would want a break down of what exactly that was about.   

I do know that being a union rep is not a fun thing, it's not just about turning up at meetings and shouting, it involves a lot of research etc.  The two I have known well (never been in a union myself) have been worn to a frazzle by it. Actually I knew three, just remmbered that for a number of years Mr Muggins was shop steward in a very small  firm - it didn't do him any good either. But he did bring them out when blue asbestos dust was falling from the ceiling. 
Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline 20Eyes

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Too fast, too deep, blah blah blah
so before jumping at the figure I would want a break down of what exactly that was about.   

That's why I would like to see the figures substantiated and broken down.

On your first point, no, I don't imagine it relates to one individual (I certainly hope not, anyway).

365 hours in six months where care givers are paid to do things other than provide care seems worrying, to me. If you're sitting there in your own piss and shit wondering why nobody has come to clean it up, I'm sure that being told they were in 'diversity meetings' doesn't exactly seem a worthwhile excuse.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Potter Stewart

Offline Bogomil

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Hello !
Bogo

As you appear to indicate in previous posts that you somehow communicate  with Andy, perhaps you can ask him for a copy of the report he saw?

That appears quite a statement to have made at the meeting on a report no one on TS has had sight of? or is this a typical example of Liberal floweriness?
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8894678.Council_criticised_over_home_care_cuts/



I’m often being accused of posting for him, which I don’t, so will say no more and let other TS’er contact him themselves. If the Lib Dems have a copy then surely other councillors will also have seen it, so it’s hardly a case of Liberal Floweriness, what about asking those councillors who post on TS from the Labour camp.

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Gender: Male
I witnessed the handing over of a petition of 9000 signatures at the council last night, that petition has been collected in a little over 3 weeks I believe. The petition contained signatures from all areas of Swindon. If the time had been longer I think that number could have been doubled, such is the support for homecare staff.

What I do not like about this scrutiny of the Homecare Team is they are all frontline staff who are professional and care about what they do. Last night in Cabinet I heard Rod Bluh make point scoring remarks at the Labour group leader followed by Cllr David Renard, Cllr Peter Mallinson and Cllr Mark Edwards about how bad social services were under the last Labour administration. I understand the value of a history lesson however Cllr Montaut was questioning them about their £2.2 million pound overspend in social care services. Monty was told that the services were now rated at excellent.

Yes that is correct rated excellent by nothing less than the Care Quality Commission, what Cllrs Bluh, Mallinson, Renard and Edwards ommitted to mention was that it was the Homecare service that was rated as excellent. Here we have the contradiction that I pointed out in a Council meeting last year. Cllr Mallinson claims that social care services are too expensive, over provided and over staffed, and give too much service and yet Cllr Bluh, Edwards, and especially Renard and Edwards  claim that it is excellent. That excellent includes the homecare service that they are busy dismantling. Which version of the versions supported by the facts presented is the correct one? As I said then in that Council meeting to the leader of the council; can you tell me?  :-\  http://62.73.173.233/CSCI/DCA/73/ES0000047573.V2000041705.R01.S.pdf

My full blog post http://tinyurl.com/6dlx77m and here is the the carers blog http://www.carers4swindon.co.uk/index.html
All posts on this forum are my own opinion and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

robert feal-martinez

  • Guest
There's a quick and easy saving of £85m right there.

WTF are taxpayers subsidising unions and their members?

It's all part of their 'uman rights', init.