Talkswindon

Politics: Swindon & Westminster => Coalition Budget Cuts - And What They Mean For Swindon => Topic started by: Scott Thunes on October 28, 2011, 09:30:26 PM

Title: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Scott Thunes on October 28, 2011, 09:30:26 PM
Seemingly Gavin Jones (ex CPSA steward and picket line veteran from a previous life) has decided enough is enough and is trying again to remove UNISON's influence at SBC.

The proposed budget (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5284&T=10&J=3 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5284&T=10&J=3)) page 46 says:

Replace Council funding support for Union posts with support to a new staff forum
to represent employee views in the context of Stronger Together
(proposed saving £29K)

Been tried before and stopped through legal challenge from UNISON's solicitors. Why are they persisting in such vexatious attempts? It costs yet more time and money, which SBC does not have. Oh, apart from £15 million for a bloody car park and Christ knows how much to piss for Union Square as Muse have got cold feet.

Why are Corporate Board so thick? Do they not realise that actually, a strong unionised presence is actually beneficial to both employee and employer?

Oh silly me...

So, a brainwashed 'Stronger Together' staff panel to placate the grunts eh? How impartial. Scary thing is, a lot of staff actually buy into the corporate bollocks spun from the centre, and the Day of the Triffids will be soon among them :-O
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Mart on October 28, 2011, 09:49:48 PM
Doesn't matter what you think of unions either.

You think they'd know better than to try and unllaterally remove a legal right. That'd show a very poor grasp,

Mind you, even as I am typing that ......
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Martin Wicks on October 29, 2011, 05:59:25 PM
"Stronger Together"? By taking away the right of union officers to have the time to organise and represent thousands of union members. It just goes to show what a load of cobblers all this One Swindon stuff is.

Doesn't Mr Bluh think that union members should be allowed some organisation? What a contemptuous bunch of small minded people.

Perhaps one of the Tory Councillors who frequents this site can explain to us the rationale of this proposal.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Mart on October 29, 2011, 07:09:18 PM
I think that there is a loophole in the giving up time for Union reps to do their thing, representation is still protected but the giving up time aspect is bendy.

Probably something else gone west cos some gits took the wee wee.

Don't get me wrong, I am a union member, but I have their communications to me classified as spam.

This was a course of action I was forced to take after they repeatedly urged me to vote for a specific party and used very poor grammar in their increasingly strident instructions.

Politics has been ruined by politicians and Unions have been ruined by, well, politicians who use the union as a kind of ersatz political party until a nomination comes along and they have saved enough to take the pay cut.

Yes, you Mr Johnson, amongst others.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 29, 2011, 07:28:14 PM
Martin,
it was reported in the press recently, when this subject came up, that the police service, alone, pays out each year a total of nearly 7 million pounds, so that union staff can sit in an office and do their union work and nothing else.  That money could put a lot more policemen and women on the  beat, so can you justify that, surely if those people have the need to provide the union services, then the unions, instead of giving all their money to the political party of their choice, they should pay for these people themselves, after all they are only doing union work..
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Martin Wicks on October 29, 2011, 09:58:41 PM
And what about the many unions not affiliated to the Labour Party?

These are rank and file members who are elected to these positions. You cannot organise nearly 3,000 people without somebody on full-time release. It's not a job that can be done in your spare time.

We are talking about SBC here not the police. And we are talking about one post (shared part-time between two people). Do you agree with SBC?
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Des Morgan on October 29, 2011, 10:27:54 PM
Quote
Doesn't Mr Bluh think that union members should be allowed some organisation? What a contemptuous bunch of small minded people.

I agree with Union members having representation - but Martin - why can't the Union pay for the 'organiser' - why should taxpayers have to pick up the bill?
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Got Signal on October 30, 2011, 07:22:07 AM
I agree with Union members having representation - but Martin - why can't the Union pay for the 'organiser' - why should taxpayers have to pick up the bill?

This is an oft repeated old tory chestnut and repeated Mantra of the bosses and their supporters. Will the staff involved in this new staff forum be paid? For example what does Gavin Do For Free to the council tax payer in staff negotiations about changes most of which are coming top down through his office?

Will he freely give his time to the forum and will all the other staff who attend also do it out of paid working hours?  Will the forum have no cost to the council tax payer? Perhaps it's a question worth asking?
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Des Morgan on October 30, 2011, 08:01:44 AM
Quote
This is an oft repeated old tory chestnut and repeated Mantra of the bosses and their supporters.


On this occasion it is simply a straightforward question from a taxpayer.

It is not as if the Unions do not have the money to pay for 'Union related organisation' after all also they employ staff in a myriad of functions, they pay money to not only the Labour Party but also to individual MPs and they contribute to various studies and Think Tanks.  All perfectly right and proper.

Employers have HR departments which administer all manner of benefits packages and from my own experience (in the main) are often more on the emplyees side as opposed to management - hence they are often reffered to by managers as the 'Hardly Relevant' team, a tad unfairly perhaps.

The question is not a political one.

I think the issue of whether meetings will be held in 'work time'  is also interesting. I expect they will be and rightly so to.

Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Got Signal on October 30, 2011, 08:15:59 AM
Quote
This is an oft repeated old tory chestnut and repeated Mantra of the bosses and their supporters.


On this occasion it is simply a straightforward question from a taxpayer.

It is not as if the Unions do not have the money to pay for 'Union related organisation' after all also they employ staff in a myriad of functions, they pay money to not only the Labour Party but also to individual MPs and they contribute to various studies and Think Tanks.  All perfectly right and proper.

Employers have HR departments which administer all manner of benefits packages and from my own experience (in the main) are often more on the emplyees side as opposed to management - hence they are often reffered to by managers as the 'Hardly Relevant' team, a tad unfairly perhaps.

The question is not a political one.

I think the issue of whether meetings will be held in 'work time'  is also interesting. I expect they will be and rightly so to.



Des

Sorry was not implying you were a boss supporter or being political.  O0

Your question just made me think that it is in the bosses interests to have good relations with their staff and that forums, council's what ever they are called are usually held in work time and the bill for everyones's time is picked up by the company or in this case the Council Tax Payer.

I think we are both saying the same thing here?  :wink:

Perhaps some think  it is ok for a private company to add this into their overhead then that is paid for by customers? But that the public sector should be treated less favourably?
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Mart on October 30, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Perhaps some think  it is ok for a private company to add this into their overhead then that is paid for by customers? But that the public sector should be treated less favourably?

Bit naive and idealistic I know, but a healthy working relationship between a workforce and higher management should, surely, be self financing and more. That requires significant attitude shifts to work I know, maybe it's not even possible but it is worth the effort to try?

It is when that relationship in adversarial and confrontational that it is counter productive and it is that sort we hear about. What an utter waste that all is.

If a workforce and management can't derive what they each want from common goals then the enterprise is doomed to failure. Qantas would be a timely example.

One of those easier said than done jobbies I reckon
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 30, 2011, 04:07:36 PM
I understand the 'why does the taxpayer pick up the tab' question and it's a perfectly valid but not-easily-answered question.

Using Martins number of '3,000' employees I reckon on-site representation is a 'must' - representatives that 'know' the organisation, the various job roles etc, and who are easily accessible to other employees.

Given that the Administration controlled by Cllr Bluh could quite fairly be considered as hostile to the SBC workforce at the best of times, and probably more so as he cuts ever deeper into coal face workers but increases the number of highly paid executives, I think on-site (within SBC) Union representation is more needed now than ever before.

Self-funding representation within local authorities sounds great, but how long would SBC Union reps last 'on-site' before Rod's Bluhligans found a way of kicking them off-site and keeping them well away from the organisation?  Union bods need to be both employed by the local authority and present within the authority so they can represent, in SBC's case, 3,000 other employees, and do so free from coercion or pressure from the authority itself.

This isn't a loophole which is being exploited, these laws were drafted to ensure local authority workers have some level of on-site representation and protection from politicians like Cllr Bluh & his colleagues. 

It's no surprise that Rods Bluhligans have instructed their Chief Executive to do his best to kill off the Union presence within SBC prior to the remaining cuts, sackings and redundancies happening. 

It's ironic really, we see Cllr Russell Holland claiming that SBC tenants are 'protected' by an 'independent' tenants adviser, (and he's quite happy to pay that adviser large sums of taxpayers cash), but his cabinet is dogmatically opposed to publicly funding just 1 full time salary to give similarly 'independent' protection to 3,000 public sector workers......

....let's not forget that while this latest cutting manoeuvre was being planned Rod & Chums were busy cutting the number of top jobs at SBC from four to three by actually increasing it to 5 by appointing Matt Gott as Board Director for Localities (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=7959.msg69528#msg69528).  The argument over whether his appointment was even legal is still raging.

Mr Gotts' salary alone would be sufficient to fund 3, 4 or perhaps even 5 full time union representatives so I don't think the taxpayer is getting a raw deal here. 3,000 local people need advice and support from their unions and some level of protection from an employer which is not acting benignly towards them.

The fact that their employer, Swindon Borough Council, is effectively controlled by the Swindon Conservative Party bodes ill for them.  It bodes even worse for those SBC employees who are not union members and have no protection whatsoever.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Martin Wicks on October 30, 2011, 04:38:18 PM
Good point Geoff. Of course, the Council can buy the 'independent' tenant advisor, to be 'on side'. But their concern to dispense with one post for union members is to make it more difficult for the union to campaign against their cuts.

I repeat my request for one of the Tory Councillors who frequents this site to explain the rationale of such a cut. Surely one of you must be prepared to defend it?
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Scott Thunes on October 30, 2011, 04:46:09 PM
And it would appear the staff are finally realising what 'Stronger Together' really means. It's not about losing a layer of management, it's a disgustingly cynical way of displacing managers who don't get a role in the new structure, and pitting them against who were once their direct reports in competition for a lower-paid post.

So, imagine I have a line manager, who's line manager has not got a post in Tier 2. They may battle it out for a post in Tier 3. Guess what? The higher-calibre manager's manager gets the job - which then pits me against my manager for a job.

SBC get 'better' staff (on paper) for less money, as let's face it there are little jobs out there to go for, and the poor grunts at the bottom are out on their ear.

But, give it a year and the managers on low grades find a job outside and whoopee! SBC has lost an entire generation of skilled and committed staff, cast on the scrapheap of hateful Tory ideology.

Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Bassettina on October 30, 2011, 04:49:05 PM
Also, come renegotiation of pay, conditions, etc, joint representation (via a union) is far easier for a council or employers than dealing with 3000 individuals with varying demands.

Anyhoo, my experince of staff panels or forums:

a while back I used to work for ASDA who did NOT like unions. There was no union representation, but you could (ie, HAD TO) join the 'ASDA Friends' or whatever it was called. They took a bit of your salary back (into ASDA's profits) and in exchange there was the occassional non-subsidised bowling trip and a basket of pot pouri in the ladies' loo. No representation in staff disputes, no sense the 'Friends' were on the side of the employees - just pointless window dressing and a way of keeping a union off site.

Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Mr Bojangles on October 30, 2011, 06:28:59 PM



....let's not forget that while this latest cutting manoeuvre was being planned Rod & Chums were busy cutting the number of top jobs at SBC from four to three by actually increasing it to 5 by appointing Matt Gott as Board Director for Localities ([url]http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=7959.msg69528#msg69528[/url]).  The argument over whether his appointment was even legal is still raging.





If you look at the special committe report for the 31st October, it looks like there are 6 board members, the original four:
• Board Director Service Delivery – Mr Bernie Brannan
• Board Director Commissioning – Mr John Gilbert
• Board Director Finance, Revenues, Benefits and Property – Mr Stuart
McKellar
• Programme Director Stronger Together – Mr Patrick Weir.

and then an extra two:!!
2.12. Based on the skills and experience demonstrated by these candidates, the
recommendation from the Sub-Committee was that the following
candidates should be appointed:
o Board Director Localities – Mr Matt Gott
o Board Director Transformation & Strategic Projects – Mr Hitesh Patel.

Not the saving that was originally proposed!
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Mart on October 30, 2011, 06:36:20 PM
Vis a vis Union Reps, time off etc

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179246 (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179246)

Look, straight from the horse's mouth as it were. P'raps someone ought to give it the once over before they hurtle off on another ill conceived jaunt.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Muggins on October 30, 2011, 07:10:23 PM
Hang on a minutes, what's this 'Board'  Director business, has it turned into Swindon PLC, without so much as a by your leave??

Board of what?

And if Mr Patrick Weir is going to do anything 'Stronger Together, then we'd better know who we are all doing it with!
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Mart on October 30, 2011, 07:17:04 PM
Think you'll find that's Bored Director as in there's no f****** money (except for consultants and Vision Projects) and no f****** staff so they have nothing to do.

'Scuse my French.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 30, 2011, 08:06:14 PM
unless the rules have changed, if your in the union, you pay union dues, so if they need someone to sit full time to sort out the day to day problems, then they should provide a person to sit and do that job,
 several years ago, I finished my collection jobs and still had about just under 2 hours to finish time, so I parked up my truck and went home, when I got home my boss called me back to work for going home early, so I went back and after his rant about me going early, even though I had done all that was required of me, I asked about the lad who came in most days when he wanted to, signed on, then signed off and went home. I was told in no uncertain terms, that he, the manager, wasnt talking about union men and their duties and anyway, his wages were paid by the union,  which we all know is a lod of rubbish, but thats the spineless men we had in charge.. If I have time in the morning, I will do a FOI and ask how much the council actually pay out for these learned men...
If the police are paying out 7 million pounds for this 'service', how much is being paid out on a national basis..
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Des Morgan on October 30, 2011, 08:42:33 PM
Quote
2.12. Based on the skills and experience demonstrated by these candidates, the
recommendation from the Sub-Committee was that the following
candidates should be appointed:
o Board Director Localities – Mr Matt Gott
o Board Director Transformation & Strategic Projects – Mr Hitesh Patel.

I am constantly amazed at the 'unswerving confidence' SBC place in Mr Patel. I am sure he is a very nice man but that's about it. From his being the 'accidental director' through his period as the man who 'knew nothing' and could never be relied upon to 'provide an answer' he has demonstarted none of the qualities associated with such an august position. I suppose he knows an awful lot and therefore his knowledge demands he be kept 'close'.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 30, 2011, 11:55:47 PM
I don't have any truck with the 'Nu-Conservatism' being delivered by Rod Bluh and cheered on by the Kohima's of Swindon.  It's fast-acting, corrosive and tries to pit colleagues, neighbours, house owners and tenants against each other in whatever combination is needed to 'deliver' whatever the political objective of the week happens to be.



Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 31, 2011, 01:49:28 PM
Not Me Geoff, Im, waiting for next year and the fall of Bluh and his council, then youll be a councillor, no more house building, but I dont know what will happen about the previous Labour core policy of what was 30,000 new houses in the area, no more waiting for anything to be built, no more waiting for any problems to be solved, cant say what the the new council tax will be, going on past records, and we might even see Ms Snelgrove featured in the council life.. happy days..... If you read previous entries, I have said he is a mistake but no matter, as long as they slag the likes of me off, it gets the subject changed again doesnt it......,  :2funny:
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Muggins on October 31, 2011, 04:22:48 PM
Yep, but based on it's not what you know,  but who you know, you should be alright Kohima, for geting your allotment stuff done!
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 31, 2011, 06:33:52 PM
Its one of the myths on here Muggins, everybody assumes I know everybody and so can do or say what I want in support of the likes of bluh, pop round some time and Ill show the emails,letters that I have sent to him and others, most of them with no reply, I can do my gardening when I want, its just getting the others to do what they promise or say they will , and surprise, wont do...  and of course like some, I cant do name dropping or the likes of "when I go to see so and so".....
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: old ways on November 10, 2011, 10:20:18 PM
Hello old friends ? well maybe some anyways !!.
Once upon a time , there was a bitter twisted old sh...t, who decided that his own power and authority, backed by the owner of the clownculator and an associated other bunch of pond life, would proceed to put lives at risk of vulnerable elderly people and place 64 talented and committed staff on the dole. He promised safety of there jobs and savings to SBC
He picked a fight, he went further and slagged off individuals, he went further and avoided questions and blatently lied.
As i said , he picked a fight. He misunderstood that both the people he was dismissing and slagging off and the people in his council ward had a voice.
He seemed a might perturbed when they had the temerity to not believe he had the best interests of the vulnerable to mind in his actions.
So he attended council meetings and scowled when service users spoke against his plans.
His beleaugered mentor chose to passify and shake hands with the non believers on his behalf,even denying a service user to be heard in the process.
The leader of the gang looked down gloomily at his underling but defended him to the last.
But still the old sh..t remained resolute that certain Union members had no right to campaign, but strangely he didnt feel confident enough to debate the subject on live local radio , with someone he believed to be his nemisis. Instead he chose to launch grievances against that person and to single her out for collecting signatures on a petition.
The old sh..t soon decided that democracy was not for him,and tried to smear and ridicule those against him.
Sadly , the old shit won the day,and the vulnerable became more vulnerable and the dedicated became jobless or exploited.
However, karma sometimes comes round quicker than we think, and the old sh..t was visited with the same outcome as the people he had just sent up the road. How cruel the ballot box ?
Maybe his fate would require the services of the people he had just sacked, a dotage with plenty of time to consider his great victory? or maybe just time to dribble down his chest ?
But low and behold , the old sh..t is still alive and kicking. a pillar of Swindon society brandishing a pen like a sword in the Adver.
It appears he comes to vanquish the old foe?
Bring it on old sh..t .
What council ward are you planning to crawl back into.
Memories are longer than you think, and passions remain as strong,
Beware when you choose to pick a fight as comebacks rarely smell of roses , and old foes may have gotten wiser and stronger.
Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Geoff Reid on November 28, 2012, 07:13:27 AM
Is the 'old shit' in question ex-councillor Mallinson?


Posted on Talkswindon.org using the Tapatalk 2 App for Android on my Samsung Galaxy Note....

Title: Re: Budget 2012/13 - what the Adver missed
Post by: Scott Thunes on March 19, 2013, 08:45:36 PM
Of course it refers to Mallinson

Interesting re-reading this thread,  considering the eventual fate of Patel and Gott...