The following details have been supplied by Green agenda Under the government's 2010 commitment to reduce carbon emissions across the government estate by 10% in a year, the Department for Environment and Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) implemented a maximum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius across its offices during the winter months. This was despite PCS reps advising Defra that this would be "unworkable" because of differences in thermal comfort. Unsurprisingly, many staff complained about feeling cold and some brought in hot water bottles. Staff also complained when their enquiries to Defra's facilities management failed to get a response. As productivity fell one Defra business unit issued fleeces and gloves to staff to help them keep warm, raise morale and boost productivity. Battling to get the point across PCS Defra reps raised the temperature issue with Defra's permanent secretary at a departmental Whitley meeting. PCS Defra group assistant secretary Graham Bowers said: "It's been a battle just to get the point across. Mini temperature monitors were put in place, but these were just to show that the temperature was at 19C which entirely missed the point – staff were feeling the cold. Although windows had been draft-proofed this wasn't successful and they had to be re-sealed. This episode shows the need for green reps to be vigilant and to ensure that green targets do not have a detrimental effect on staff."

Welcome to the August (Just) edition of the mag. Not really a great deal to say except it is packed with info from PCS that you may find useful and informative. Congratulations also to our prize winners from the Learning at Work events we held recently. Winner of the iPAD shuffle was Katie Bainbridge from Norcross, and our runners up all winning some chocolates were Donald Mason from Warbreck, Elaine Longstaff also from Warbreck and Kirsty Osborne from Peel Park. Well done all. Hope you enjoy the mag! Lee.

Health problems rife in call centres The physical and mental health of the UK's million call centre workers is at significant risk, a survey by the public sector union UNISON has found. The union says the findings highlight the toll that pressurised, target-driven and closely-monitored working can take on call centre staff, preventing from taking the necessary measures to protect their health and wellbeing. A quarter of respondents said that even their access to a toilet is restricted. Nearly 70 per cent of respondents experiencing eyestrain at least some of the time, nearly 60 per cent reporting the same for hearing problems and more than half said they had problems with their voices. More than 80 per cent of respondents said that their work caused them to feel stressed, with nearly a quarter of those saying the stress experienced has reached a damaging level that impacts on their home and personal life. Describing the findings as 'a wakeup call for call centre employers', UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said: 'The alarming number of health problems highlighted by the survey shows why health and safety matters, and the folly of this government's constant attacks on health and safety and the cuts in inspections in workplaces such as call centres.' He added: 'That this survey has shown more than a quarter have had their basic right to a toilet break restricted or monitored is bad enough, but the physical toll on call workers' eyes, ears and voices - the tools of their trade - is something that managers and organisations cannot ignore. Workers rightly expect their employers to have a duty of care not only to their physical health, but also to their mental wellbeing, and the findings of this survey - that 8 in 10 are experiencing stress, a quarter of them to a damaging degree - must be addressed urgently.' Call centre workers suffer voice problems One in four call centre workers suffer voice problems because managers are failing to properly protect their health, a study has found. Researchers commissioned by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) found around one in 10 call handlers had been diagnosed with a voice problem, while the same proportion said their work was now suffering because of the stress placed on their vocal cords. Of the call agents surveyed, 60 per cent reported having difficulty making themselves heard against background noise and 41 per cent said they had failed to be heard by the customer on the other end of the line. More than one in three call agents said their voice was hoarse often or very often. The researchers identified new starters, particularly female workers, as a high-risk group who are more likely to develop voice problems. Experts at Ulster University surveyed nearly 600 call handlers from 14 call centres across the UK and Ireland. Lead researcher Dr Diane Hazlett of Ulster University said: 'Policies on voice care should exist in all call centre environments, and should be reviewed regularly. Going forward, there needs to be an emphasis on the prevention of voice problems within the industry - to maintain optimal vocal health. Employers in this sector need to show they better recognise just how important the voice is, to having a healthy, well supported workforce and a thriving business.' In 2005, public sector union UNISON called for urgent action to address the voice loss risk for call centre workers, and made recommendations to tackle the problem. Adult education teacher Joyce Walters received a six figure payout in November 2010 for the occupational voice loss that forced her to give up her job.

The following details have been supplied by PCS HQ: Far-right advances – a warning to us all The results of the French and Greek elections in April and May are a warning to the labour movement in Europe, says Graeme Atkinson, European editor of anti-fascist campaign Hope not hate. In France, Marine Le Pen, the candidate of the ‘re-sprayed’ but still no less fascist Front National (FN) scored 17.9% in the presidential election first round while in Greece the openly-Nazi Golden Dawn (GD) party polled almost 7% capturing 21 seats in a parliament that lasted only a few days. Both of these parties, which have had links to the fascist British National Party, are implacably anti-trade union, Golden Dawn violently so. They have made progress thanks in part to the economic and financial turmoil tearing the Eurozone apart, but also because of a lamentable failure of the democratic political mainstream to challenge them. Le Pen’s vote signalled a dangerous and worrying movement in the mood of the French electorate, fed by the posturing of Nicolas Sarkozy and his attempts to rip apart France’s public sector and welfare system. In Greece, new elections took place on 17 June and support for Holocaust-denying GD held at 6.92%. Scapegoating What factors have acted in favour of the FN and GD? Apart from the political mainstream looking the other way, there has also been the near-fixation of that same mainstream on “immigration” and scapegoating “foreigners”. Taking this line, aided, abetted and frequently led by huge chunks of the media, extremists’ views find dubious respectability by tapping into the residual racism that is widespread. A further key factor has been the harsh effects of so-called austerity measures that are supposedly solving the economic crisis but are in fact only generating political and economic crisis. In both countries these have meant the beefing-up of immigration and law and order policies at the same time as vicious public sector cuts. In Greece, especially, voters are still being told that they face a stark choice between “austerity and mass poverty” but, so far, the austerity has increased mass poverty, not reduced it. At the same time, we have to measure the threat from the far-right soberly and cautiously in the face of wild assertions that the “Rise and rise of the far-right casts a shadow over Europe”.

Evidence is seldom presented when huge claims like this are made. Why not? There is none. Frequent friction The far-right is not an undifferentiated mass. It is multi-faceted and composed of elements whose relationship with each other is frequently one of friction. This heaving mass of contradictory tendencies does not “grow” in a linear or exponential manner. In political terms, it has successes in some countries and its star declines in others. Thus, far-right advances in Austria, Hungary, Finland, Netherlands and Switzerland have been more than balanced by electoral reverses and losses, internal crises and debilitating splits in the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, Norway and Serbia in the past five years. This is not to downplay the obvious dangers but rather to locate them in a proper context and estimate them properly. Empowering people What we are seeing, partly driven by the deepest international economic, social and political crisis since the 1930s, is the growth of conditions favourable to exploitation by the far-right: economic insecurity, mass unemployment, mass transnational migration and the increased tendencies to the various kinds of racism, xenophobia and other hate prejudices and ignorance that the far-right feeds off. By bringing these factors to the centre of our approach we can best combat these socially-destructive tendencies and encourage communities to stand together and politically wipe out those intent on undermining them. We can only do this if we empower people, not frighten and paralyse them. That has been the key to Hope not Hate’s enormous success in derailing the British National Party with mass campaigning. The same approach will help defeat the racist English Defence League. There is a role for every trade unionist in this anti-fascist struggle.

Jon Says:

When our intrepid reporter asked Jon Calgon if he was looking forward to Summer this year and if he was going anywhere good…

Jon said: “Nah”

Quiz Results Grant’s Easter Quick quiz It’s Grant back with the results of my quiz. I normally say that is that “Dastardly Mick Daniels” who pinches my Easter eggs every year No one got the answer right that we had in mind, so we drew a winner out of a hat (like a rabbit) and the lucky winner was Lesley Tague from Warbreck (who won an egg). That’s all folks

Grant Grant’s Easter Eggstravaganza quiz Well guess what I was made into a bunny after all. I just love that costume. Here are the answers to my quiz. Answer 1: Harvey was the name of the rabbit in the 1950 film; Answer 2: Kit Williams wrote the book Masquerade; Answer 3: Larry Lamb is best known for playing one of the greatest villains of British soap Archie Mitchell in the BBC television soap East Enders; Answer 4: Lamb Chop was a glove puppet that appeared on TV with Shari Lewis during the 1960’s; Answer 5: Bob Hoskins appeared in the film The Long Good Friday; Answer 6: Easter Sunday fell this year on a Sunday. The winner who received a mystery prize (of some eggs) was Gail Dawson from Norcross – Yay! Well done.

Grant Mick’s King of Pop Quiz Micko back with the results of my Michael Jackson Tribute quiz, and yes I really was a big fan of Michael Jackson, or Jacko when I was younger. Here are the answers to my tribute quiz. Answer 1: Your butt is mine, are the opening lyrics to BAD; Answer 2: The name of Michael’s ranch was Neverland; Answer 3: Randy was Michael’s younger brother who later joined the Jacksons; Answer 4: Ben was a rat; Answer 5: A flamingo is not mentioned in the song Rockin Robin; Answer 6: Eddie Van Halen played guitar on “Beat it” The winner was Cathy Griffiths, who won some eggs. Top marks Cathy! The King of Pop will never be replaced, no one comes anywhere near Michael’s standard. Mick-oooooow

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group: Regular performance discussions are essential Arrange regular discussions Regular performance discussions are an essential part of the new People Performance process for 2012-13. People Performance Procedure, paragraph 7, provides guidance for regular discussions and confirms that reviewing performance should not be seen as an annual process. The manager and employee are jointly responsible for having regular performance discussions throughout the year. DWP has also published a “How to” guide, following consultation but not agreement, with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS) on how to hold regular performance discussions.

Not time consuming Regular discussions need not be time consuming. They can be very brief and very informal. The “How to” guide advises that: The quality of the performance discussions is what matters and, depending on what is being talked about, you should decide between you whether it would be useful to keep notes and how these should be recorded. The frequency and location of the discussion meetings can be agreed between you. They must be held in a place that provides privacy. (Paragraph 1.3) Monthly or bi-monthly discussions with a simple record of each discussion would be a safeguard. An agreed record can be useful when formally assessing performance particularly at mid and end-of-year reviews.

Ensure there are no surprises Regular performance discussions with employees at the start and during the year will ensure there are no surprises at the end of the year. Employees must be made aware of evidence which will inform the end of year performance rating as it arises to avoid surprises in the end of year discussion. Throughout the performance year there must be a continuous assessment of performance as part of the normal day to day management process of interaction between countersigning managers, line managers and employees. This should ensure that one person’s evidence has not been over-or under-estimated compared to that of other employees doing similar work. Balanced consideration of performance End-of-year ratings will always be based on a balanced consideration of the employee’s personal performance over the entire year. The reasons for the award of a performance rating must be transparent to the employee. Managers must fully explain the reasons the employee has been awarded a particular rating following the consistency or validation process. Where a ‘Must Improve’ rating is indicated, the steps to be taken that should lead to an improvement with reference to the ‘What’ and the ‘How’, must be clearly explained.

Cutting regulations is costing millions The government is spending more than £10 million annually on efforts to 'ease the regulatory burden on business'. The cost of the government's deregulation drive was uncovered by Environmental Health News (EHN) in a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. Top spenders include the Better Regulation Executive (BRE), which develops policies to 'reduce regulation', costs £3.9m a year to run and employs 44 civil servants. The Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO), which operates the primary authority scheme and advises councils, costs £3.5m a year to run and employs 27 civil servants. Better Regulation Units (BRUs), which are based in each Whitehall department, cost the public purse an estimated £2.2m every year. According to the responses from government obtained by EHN, the Red Tape Challenge website, which allows the businesses to identify regulations they want scrapped, has 13 civil servants working on it and is expected to cost £796,288 to run this year. The Cabinet Office paid a web developer £25,008 to maintain the site and outsourced the moderation of the comments at the cost £37,328. There are also 24 civil servants including finance directors and policy heads who are 'board level champions' who push the better regulation agenda in their departments. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) told EHN it would

be too expensive to calculate the cost of their work. EHN totted up the total annual cost of the BRE, BRDO, BRU and the Red Tape Challenge to £10.2m. Stephen Battersby, immediate past president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), told EHN the money would be better spent cracking down on firms that put the public at risk. 'There is no evidence of over-regulation, indeed it was deregulation of banking that led to the irresponsible lending that led to the crash,' he said. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said the government was wasting precious money and resources on 'an ideological whim.' He added: 'With 20,000 people across the UK dying prematurely as a result of work-related accidents and illnesses, cutting back on vital safety regulation is the last thing they should be doing.' Regulation low on burdens hitlist for business In a marked contrast to government claims, regulations are not a big concern to business, who would much rather see ministers take action to drum up business and free up cash, an official survey has concluded. The Business Perceptions Survey 2012, published last week by the government's business department (BIS), found while only 14 per cent of businesses cite regulation as the main barrier they face, 45 per cent say that attracting and retaining customers is their biggest challenge and 16 per cent cite access to finance. Even when businesses did complain about regulation, there grumbles on health and safety were highly questionable. Half (50 per cent) said

'being ready for or dealing with inspections' by the safety enforcer was a burden, but most businesses are now exempt from preventive health and safety inspections and the others are unlikely to see an inspector for years and sometimes decades. Even then, safety inspections were more welcome than a visit relating to company law (56 per cent said this was a burden) or employment law (53 per cent). Finding guidance and advice on safety regulations was identified by 70 per cent of BIS survey respondents as burdensome, a finding at odds with HSE's own satisfaction surveys. HSE's most recent customer satisfaction survey on its website information, for example, found 91 per cent said it was 'very good' or 'good'.

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group:

JSAOL Trailblazers Background DWP has a target for 80% of new Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claims to be made via the online channel by the by September 2013. This forms part of the department’s “digital by default” aim for claimants to use online services as their primary access to departmental services. More recently this was seen in the automated service delivery programme which failed to launch last year. Currently only around 20% jobseekers claim online, whilst 52% have internet access at home and 67% have access to the internet. Recent developments DWP are now piloting 3 approaches or ‘trailblazers’ from 25th May to encourage the take up of Jobseekers allowance online (JSAOL) claims. The first trailblazer involves the claimant being offered assistance and access to the internet to be able to make their claim, they then can return to the telephony route if possible. The second trailblazer pilots a deliberate additional built in time for callers opting the telephony channel to make their claim to JSA, the caller will hear an automated message to advise them about the online option whilst they wait. The third trailblazer is piloting an incentivized approach where the caller is informed that they will receive their benefit claimant more quickly if they claim online, claims made online will be prioritised above claims made through any other route. PCS response PCS have pointed out that the change in policy for the trailblazer approach appears to be seriously at odds with the recently published DWP Customer Charter which states that “DWP will deal with customers

as quickly as we can”. We also believe that there are serious health and safety concerns, as claimants may be frustrated and distressed through additional un-necessary delays when they are already in a difficult or vulnerable situation. PCS believes there is an equality impact on more vulnerable claimants through the new approaches, as a public body the employer has to have due regard to eliminate discrimination. Members have also made PCS aware of the numerous problems created through partially complete JSAOL forms which impacts on jobcentre processes, especially where the Financial Assessor (FA) role has been removed. Conclusion PCS is opposed to these trailblazers which introduce delays to claims and payments. The move to force claimants into using digital channels in order to meet an arbitrary target is also opposed, whilst we believe that welfare and benefit service should be modernised and improved, DWP service users should not be denied or punished for requesting help over the phone or in person. PCS will continue to raise these matters with DWP management, and look to work with claimant organisations to highlight the unfair treatment that claimants who contact a trailblazer site will receive.

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group:

Consistency checking & Validation meeting guidance for People Performance in DWP ‘How to’ guide published DWP has published guidance, following consultation but not agreement, with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS) on “How to Conduct Performance Management Consistency Checks and Validation At Mid- and End-Of-Year”. This ‘How to’ guide is an appendix to the People Performance Procedures and describes how to carry out:

a) Mandatory mid-year consistency checks for all grades up to Grade 6/Band G; b) Mandatory end-of-year consistency checks for grades AA/Band A to EO/Band C; c) Mandatory end-of-year validation meetings for grades HEO/Band D to Grade 6/Band G.

This guidance therefore needs to be read and applied together with the respective People Performance procedures. Aim of consistency checks The aim of these consistency checks and validation meetings will be to ensure that there is continuous shared understanding of performance expectations and that performance evidence is assessed consistently across employee peer groups - i.e. that one employee’s evidence is not over- or under-rated compared to other employees. Balanced consideration of performance End-of-year ratings will always be based on a balanced consideration of the employee’s personal performance over the entire year. The reasons for the award of a performance rating must be transparent to the employee. Managers must fully explain the reasons the employee has been awarded a particular rating following the consistency or validation process. Where a ‘Must Improve’ rating is indicated, the steps to be taken that should lead to an improvement in their rating, with reference to the ‘What’ and the ‘How’, must be clearly explained. Distribution range A Distribution Range of ratings will set realistic expectations throughout the year and provide a context for all consistency checking and validation activity. This distribution will be guided – where a consistent assessment of performance evidence produces a different distribution of ratings, employees will not have their performance ratings changed or forced simply to meet the Distribution Range. Throughout the year Throughout the performance year there must be a continuous assessment of performance as part of the normal day to day management process of interaction between countersigning managers, line managers and employees. This should ensure that one person’s evidence has not been over-or under-estimated compared to that of other employees doing similar work. Regular performance discussions with employees at the start and during the year will ensure there are no surprises at the end of the year. Mid-year consistency checks for all grades By conducting a light touch consistency check at the middle of the year, countersigning managers will ensure that there is a continued clear understanding of performance expectations and that no employee’s performance is being over- or under-estimated in relation to those expectations. Countersigning managers will be able to establish the likely distribution of performance ratings in

Cont.

relation to the Distribution Range and to check that employees’ objectives remain SMART and relevant. End of year consistency checks (AA – EO) Countersigning managers will be responsible for ensuring that final ratings are based on a consistent assessment of evidence that objectives have been met and competencies / values / behaviours have been demonstrated to the required level. Countersigning managers will take into account the Distribution Range but must ensure it is used as a guide – i.e. that employee ratings will not be changed or forced simply to meet the distribution. Countersigning managers should be able to undertake the simple consistency check using the draft performance reports and by speaking to individual line managers, as necessary, to resolve specific concerns. Whilst it may be undertaken at group line manager meetings, countersigning managers must take care not to replicate at AA/Band A – EO/Band C levels the more formal validation process described below for employees in grades HEO/Band D to Grade 6/Band G. After the simple consistency check has been concluded and final performance ratings have been decided and agreed, each line manager should meet with each of their employees to give them feedback and their final performance rating. The final rating is recorded on Resource Management (RM). Validation for HEO – Grade 6 Validation is a meeting where managers formally review the performance of employees in their peer group against the performance expectations that were set at the start of the year. The outcome of the validation meeting results in an employee’s agreed rating for the performance management year. The objectives are the same as for the lighter touch consistency check applied at grades AA/Band A to EO/Band C – i.e. to ensure no employees performance evidence is over- or under-estimated in relation to the performance expectations – but a management team meeting is mandatory. Four principles are provided for conducting a performance management validation meeting:

Objective and consistent Pragmatic Transparent Diversity & Equality

These principles for validation are explained in a chart at paragraph 19 of the ‘How to’ guide. Validation meetings should take place immediately after the line manager has held the end-of-year performance review and, if possible, in time for the employee to be notified and the final rating to be recorded on Resource Management (RM) by the end of May. To ensure that all relevant managers are able to attend, the meeting will need to be arranged well in advance, which could be from 1 March onwards PCS Mid-year Review The first mid-year review will be followed by a PCS review of the application of the new People Performance Procedures. The outcome of the People Performance process must be that all employees are awarded the performance level which they have achieved.

The shocking reality of sickness absence Nearly half of public sector workers in Scotland believe sickness absence policies encourage staff to turn up ill or injured at work, a UNISON Scotland survey has found. A quarter of workers (25 per cent) said they had worked in the previous month when too ill to do so, while almost two thirds (60 per cent) said they had worked when ill during the past year. UNISON says its survey looked at the reality of sickness absence policies in Scotland and provides further evidence to dispel the myth that public sector workers are prone to taking sick leave. One in seven (14 per cent) of those polled said the sickness absence policy at their work is 'unfair' and more than a quarter (26 per cent) said the policy is badly implemented by management. Almost two thirds (60 per cent) reported that the stress policy in their workplace was not effective, while 28 per cent said there was no stress policy at all. Scott Donohoe, chair of UNISON's Scottish health and safety committee, said: 'Given the sort of jobs UNISON members do we should all be concerned that nurses, care workers, school staff and others are going to work when they are too ill to do so. Of even more concern is the evidence of poor sickness absence policies and little effective action on stress.' He added: 'From this survey, it appears that many public service employers in Scotland see managing sickness absence as forcing employees back to work as soon as possible, or disciplining those who are off work more regularly than others.' A new survey by the Dutch health care union Abvakabo FNV found six out of ten workers in the health care sector are afraid they won't be able to work until retirement age as are result of the increasing pressure of their jobs.

Workers are taking fewer days off sick than ever Workplace sickness levels have fallen to a record low, official figures show, but the TUC and two prominent employment thinktanks believe this points to a worrying epidemic of 'presenteeism' rather than an improvement in the health of the working population. Office for National Statistics statistics released this week reveal the number of working days lost to sickness fell again in 2011, by 4 per cent. Last year 131 million working days were lost to sickness absence, with the most common causes coughs, cold and flu, and back, neck and limb problems. The average number of days lost per worker is now 4.5 a year, down from a recent peak of 7.2 days per worker in 1995. ONS said 'the greatest number of working days lost was actually due to musculoskeletal problems (34.4 million days).' It added: 'Around 27.5 million days were lost due to minor illnesses, such as coughs and colds, and 13.1 million days were lost to stress, depression and anxiety.' TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Workers are taking less time off sick than ever. The biggest problem workplaces face is not absenteeism but 'presenteeism' where workers come in when they are too ill. Presenteeism can multiply problems by making someone ill for longer and spreading germs around the workplace.' He added the figures 'show that the biggest causes of long term sickness absence are musculoskeletal disorders and stress. Both of these are often as a result of a person's work. Employers need to look at their working practices and see whether they can be changed to prevent ill-health, rather than try to blame workers for falling sick, which serves no good to anyone.' Like TUC, The Work Foundation and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) both point to more working wounded fearing for their jobs as an explanation of the figures, rather than less sickness.

The following has been supplied by PCS HQ: A Bit of History - Zonal Pay “Zonal” pay introduced in the justice system in 2007 has created greater pay inequality and failed to induce flexibility; the Government’s plan makes the same mistake. The introduction of zonal pay in the Ministry of Justice in 2007 is often cited as the beginning of the shift towards regional and local pay in the civil service. It tends to be used by employers in retail and banking who operate nationally and have large numbers of employees and usually have three to five pay bands, taking account of the premiums for London and the south east and other ‘hot spots’ for the purposes of recruitment and retention. The Ministry of Justice’s zonal pay structure covers ‘inner London’, ‘outer London’, ‘hot spots’, ‘national plus’ and ‘national’, although there are only four bands in reality. Furthermore, no rational arguments have been made in terms of identifying certain areas as ‘hot spots’. As well as creating more and wider local pay variations than was the case when the department had a national pay structure with regional differentials, the system has also institutionalised an in-built inflexibility in terms of meeting operational needs as staff are increasingly resisting transferring to zones where the pay rates are less favourable. Just as zonal pay has failed to induce the labour market flexibility envisaged, the regional and local pay system

being proposed by the government will prove the same, if not worse.

No way to postcode pay As members face unprecedented levels of job cuts and pay freeze as part of the government's austerity measures, they are bearing the brunt of the economic crisis by a move to replace national pay structures in the public sector with regional and local pay systems which is bound to drive down pay Last autumn, chancellor George Osborne, announced in parliament the decision to ask independent pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets, and consultation in the civil service is already underway. The move will mean that local

living rates of pay in the private sector can be taken into account when setting public sector pay, driving down pay especially in poorer areas. Although the drive towards local pay can be seen as part of the government’s agenda towards addressing the economic crisis, it ought to be put into context. Proposals to increase flexibility in the public sector, including localising pay were put forward in the 2002 comprehensive spending review. These proposals followed an evaluation of the public sector labour market by the Treasury, which suggested that there was significant room to shift towards increasing flexibility and responsiveness in the public sector market. This view was further echoed in the Treasury report EMU and Labour Market Flexibility published in 2003 in relation to the United Kingdom joining the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). It concluded that labour flexibility is a central element in determining the overall performance of the UK economy irrespective of whether or not the country decides to become a member of the EMU. Public and private sector pay differences Labour market flexibility is a concept which calls for the easing of labour market institutions including financial flexibility, where wage levels are not decided collectively and there are more differences between workers’ wages. The publication of the local growth white paper in October 2010 galvanised the move towards local and regional pay in the public sector as a key objective to shift power to

local communities and businesses. Although geographical pay variations currently exist in the public sector, the government believes that they are not varied enough to address recruitment and retention issues. This is in spite of the Hay Group report published by the Cabinet Office in 2010 concluding that pay delegation has, over the years, led to a divergence of pay practices including departments being played off against each other, driving pay negotiations. In 2011, the Office for National Statistics estimated the differentials between private and public sector pay to be 7.8%, using data collected in 2010 in the annual survey of hours and earnings and the labour survey. However, it sounded a note of caution that comparing pay in the two sectors is complex and fraught with difficulties because of the differences in the types of job characteristics of employees. Attack on collective bargaining PCS negotiators met with both the Treasury and Cabinet Office on 28 March to discuss pay remits during which they expressed profound disagreement to local and regional pay. Other public sector trade unions and the TUC are equally opposed to local and regional pay in the public sector because it will lead to inequality whereby staff with the same qualifications and skills would be paid at different rates because of where they live. It will also have a disproportionate impact on women as the gender pay gap that currently exists between men and women’s earnings is bound to widen. In addition, it is an attack on collective bargaining as local pay bargaining

will not only be complex and cumbersome but will make it more difficult to achieve decent and fair pay for members across the board. Finally, the government’s attempt to use local and regional pay to cut back on public sector wage bill is counter-productive because the number of low income earners whose pay is subsidised through tax credits will grow, as public sector pay is driven down.

Abuses still exist in Olympic supply chains Workers making London 2012 Olympic sportswear for top brands and high street names including Adidas and Next are being paid poverty wages, forced to work excessive overtime and threatened with instant dismissal if they complain about working conditions, according to a new report. Researchers working for the Playfair 2012 campaign visited ten factories - eight of which were producing Olympic goods - in China, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, and talked to 175 workers about their working conditions. The report, 'Fair games'? Human rights of workers in Olympic 2012 supplier factories', documents a range of working hours, pay and safety abuses. At an Amerseas Enterprises Factory in China, producing sportswear for London Olympics sponsor Adidas, workers said they were unable to wear the safety masks to protect against dust because of unrealistic production targets. Playfair 2012 says this additional evidence should increase the pressure on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to improve the working conditions in Olympic supply chains in the run up to Rio 2016. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Despite the London organisers' best intentions and its confidence that factory audits would be enough to expose any abuses, this report shows that there have been goods made in Olympic supply chains where the workers were treated in a way that cannot be described as ethical.' He added: 'We hope that the IOC can benefit from LOCOG's [London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games] experience and ensure that the lessons learned in 2012 lead to better and fairer working conditions for those producing sportswear or merchandise in the run up to Rio 2016. There is much too in this report for sportswear brands and our high street chains to take on board.' Playfair 2012, which includes the TUC and Labour Behind the Label, is the UK arm of the international Play Fair campaign.

The following details have been supplied by PCS HQ:

Greece: A symbol of resistance Greek radical left coalition Syriza has become one of the two major “anti-austerity” parties in Europe – a symbol of a growing resistance to austerity and neo-liberal orthodoxy.

Much of the support for Syriza comes from a disillusioned youth, degraded public sector workers and angry private sector trade unionists – people who for years have been fed up with a lack of representation, opportunities and social justice. Tspiras is a young man – at least a generation younger than his contemporaries in Greek politics – he spoke about the situation in his country: “What is happening in Greece, and across Europe generally, is not a war between nations and peoples but rather between classes. The Greek people are being blackmailed – they are being told that they caused this crisis: that we had a bloated public sector, that we didn’t work hard enough, that we are lazy. We, the Greek people, are told that we caused the crisis – now we must pay. But this is not a crisis of the Greeks or a crisis of simply the Eurozone but rather this is a capitalist crisis.”

Tspiras’ description of the Greek crisis sounds instantly familiar: workers being told that their inefficiencies are to blame, they were irresponsible with credit and managing their finances – and that now they must pay with their pensions, wages, jobs, education, benefits and health services. Since the student riots across Greece in 2008 the youth have looked toward Syriza as a realistic alternative to the mainstream parties such as Pasok, which although having a traditional working class base has brutally implemented an austerity programme. Syriza’s attitude towards Europe is complex but focuses on a demand that working people will not pay for an economic crisis that they did not create, and calls for an investment in jobs and tax justice, rather than redundancies, wage cuts, pension reductions and unfair taxation. Social Experiment Tspiras says a social experiment is happening in Greece – the economic “shock therapy” of neo-liberalism. “The ‘Troika’ (the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund) are waiting to see just how much people can take, before the very fabric of society tears apart. Once they know how far people can be pushed – they will export these policies to other European nations.”

This idea of a social experiment is widely held by people I met in Greece. A member of the Greek Confederation of Workers (GSEE) told me that the ‘Troika’ is using Greece as “a laboratory” with the Greek people seen as rats. As people in Athens become so starved that they live in the street and steal food from bins, I can’t help but think that his analogy is the most appropriate. Across the country, public hospitals have been brought to the brink of collapse. The last time things were like this in Greece was, commented Tspiras, during the Nazi Occupation.

Throughout our delegation’s meeting with Tspiras – organised by Coalition of Resistance – I was struck by the similarity of Syriza’s policies with the PCS There is an Alternative pamphlet. The biggest difference between the Greek situation and where PCS currently stands is, of course, the authority that Syriza now commands in the Greek parliament. Challenging Austerity As PCS begins to escalate the national campaign over jobs, pay and pensions, this year’s conference voted for the union to support European workers fighting austerity and build for co-ordinated strikes across Europe. By showing solidarity, and striking together, we can make a serious challenge to those forcing through an austerity agenda in Greece, in the UK and across Europe.

Syriza is a symbol that the tide is turning. We should take hope from its growth that the fight against cuts can be won.

The articles on the following two pages have been supplied by the TUC: Prospect says inspection prevents infection The union representing Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors and specialists says the Legionnaires' disease outbreak in Edinburgh, which by 13 June has claimed one life and left 11 others in intensive care, is a stark reminder that cuts to public services can create dangerous and ultimately expensive health-related problems in the longer term. Prospect points out that as a result of a ministerial instruction, the government's safety regulator has reduced the number of preventive workplace inspections by one-third, down from 30,000 to 20,000 a year. Negotiations officer Michael Macdonald said: 'In order to 'reduce the burdens on business' HSE field inspectors' primary focus is now on reactive investigations that respond to known incidents. Whole sectors of industry have now been explicitly exempted from proactive inspections. The current Legionella outbreak in Edinburgh highlights the risks to society of diminished proactive inspections.' Simon Hester, Prospect's HSE branch chair, said the outbreak 'is a stark reminder of the danger of denigrating health and safety at work and the value of effective inspection by the HSE. Due to spending cuts, HSE's occupational health expertise is extremely thinly spread, which has led to a lack of sufficient advice in the field. Cooling towers are common in many industrial processes and the risks created by poor health and safety management are well

known.' He added: 'It is always preferable to avoid incidents that harm people, rather than merely investigating after the event, so Prospect believes that decisions on proactive inspection should be based on professional expertise and that adequate resources are made available. HSE needs more inspectors, not less.' The union points out that the government has deemed to be 'low risk' and exempted from proactive workplace inspections: the whole of the public sector including health, education, prisons and emergency services; public transport including buses and airports; the post office and parcels delivery; agriculture, docks, electricity generation; and manufacturing industries including light engineering, plastics and rubber, printing and electrical engineering. Controversy over accident reporting changes A dramatic reduction in the number of workplace injuries required to be reported by employers will deliver scant savings to business but could mean early warnings of problems are missed. Since 6 April, employers have not been required to report to the Health and Safety Executive injuries that keep workers off normal duties for seven or fewer days. Previously three day plus injuries were reportable. Employers will also be given 15 days, rather than 10, to report an incident. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) says the changes to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995 will see a fall of around 30 per cent in the number

of incidents that must be reported by law - an average of around 30,000 fewer reports a year. It estimates the move could save businesses 10,000 hours a year. Health and safety minister Chris Grayling said: 'We want less red tape for business, and these measures should save companies thousands of hours a year. We are freeing them from the burdens of unnecessary bureaucracy, while making sure serious incidents are properly investigated.' But Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB, commented: 'This will do absolutely nothing to improve the health and safety record of UK employers or make workplaces safer. There will be 30,000 fewer accidents reported, which is not the same as 30,000 fewer accidents.' Unions believe records of less serious incidents could provide valuable intelligence which could help prevent future more serious problems. The plans were also ridiculed by the business lobby. John Longworth, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said 'the government's own figures show that this will only save firms £240,000 annually, which in the grand scheme of things, is tiny.' The saving equates to 5p per business per year. In 2008, the Health and Safety Executive estimated the cost of a single workplace fatality was £1.5m. Each occupational cancer prevented would save society considerably more than this, government estimates suggest. Unions argue this shows protective, preventive regulation backed up by enforcement easily and quickly pays for itself - delivering benefits to business and society as a whole.

HSE wants to take diseases out of RIDDOR A dramatic revision of the legal system for reporting workplace injuries, dangerous occurrences and diseases is being proposed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE's consultation document, published this week, would mean an end to the current duty under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995 to report conditions including certain strain injuries, poisonings, vibration diseases, dermatitis and occupational cancers, dust diseases and asthma. Only the much rarer work-related biological diseases, including Q fever, rabies and Legionnaires' disease, would remain reportable. HSE is also proposing that self-employed people no longer having to report injuries or illness to themselves, and the removal of both the duty on employers to report dangerous occurrences outside of high risk sectors and activities. The need to report all fatal injuries to workers and those to members of the public as a result of a work activity would remain, as would the duty to report major injuries to workers. David Charnock, HSE's consultation manager, said: 'We are proposing to simplify the requirements by removing the duty to report in those areas where the information can be better obtained from other sources or where the data isn't particularly useful to the regulators. The proposals do not indicate any change in HSE's policy or strategic objectives, and we will continue to focus our investigations on those incidents that meet our published selection criteria.' The Hazards Campaign

responded that while the existing RIDDOR system was 'full of holes and inadequate', a more rational response would be 'to improve RIDDOR so we obtain better data, not gut it so we obtain little useful data at all.' The consultation on proposals to change RIDDOR reporting requirements from 2013 is open from 2 August until 28 October 2012. It follows injury reporting changes which took effect in April. Employers now have to report injuries that keep workers off normal duties for over seven days, rather than over three days, which lops an estimated 30,000 injuries a year off the official work injury toll. TUC alert as work death rate stays up The TUC has called for a change of direction from the government after statistics on deaths at work showed the rate had remained the same for a second year, up over 17 per cent on the record low figure in 2009/10. Deaths normally dip in a recession as a result of reduced activity in the economy. But figures released this week by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reveal 173 workers were killed in 2011/12, up from the 2010/11 provisional figure of 171, although two down on HSE's finalised figure for last year of 175 fatalities. The fatal injury rate remains at 0.6 per 100,000 workers. HSE figures for 2009/10 released in June 2010 showed the current government inherited a record low fatality figure of 147 worker deaths at a rate of 0.5 per 100,000. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber commented: 'Although any drop in the number of workplace fatalities is to be welcomed, however small, these figures

are still well above the historic low of two years ago. What is most worrying is that during previous economic downturns there has been a decrease in the rate of fatalities. The fact that this is not happening now suggests that deaths could rise sharply as Britain comes of out recession, unless urgent action is taken to improve workplace safety.' The union leader added: 'During the past two years we have seen a considerable fall in the number of routine safety inspections and at the same time both HSE and local authorities have had their funding cut. Yet still we see the government continuing to attack what they claim is an unnecessary health and safety culture, a view that is unlikely to be shared by the families of the 173 people who died last year as a result of their jobs. The responsibility for these deaths may lie with the employers who break safety laws but ministers also have a duty to ensure that the rules are enforced and that the protection of workers is seen not as a 'burden' on employers but as a duty.'

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group:

Performance must improve? People performance process during the performance year

Recognising under performance People Performance Procedure, paragraph 8, provides guidance for recognising and managing under performance, which states:

Regular or one-off dips in performance should be addressed quickly. Under- performance can adversely impact on the morale of other employees and the overall productivity of the team. (8.1)

Managers should carry out regular performance discussions. It is crucial that managers have open and constructive conversations with employees about performance to agree appropriate support interventions. Early intervention can help to restore performance to the agreed standard. (8.2)

It may be useful to record brief notes of the main points of any conversations to ensure that there is a common understanding of actions agreed and to inform future discussions. (8.3)

Where performance remains at an unacceptable level the manager must follow the Unsatisfactory Performance Policy (8.4)

Regular informal performance discussions are a safeguard against surprises at mid-year or end-of-year performance reviews. Continuous assessment of performance Throughout the performance year there must be a continuous assessment of performance as part of the normal day to day management process of interaction between countersigning managers, line managers and employees. This should ensure that one person’s evidence has not been over-or under-estimated compared to that of other employees doing similar work. (Consistency Checks “How to” guidance, paragraph 7) Managing unsatisfactory performance The DWP guide for How to set performance expectations, paragraph 12, reminds managers that all normal, reasonable, supportive steps must have been taken before the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures may be used. The Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures now detail both the informal and formal approaches to managing poor performance. However, in all cases the normal People Performance process should be used to address dips in performance. Only where performance remains at an unacceptable level should the manager follow the Unsatisfactory Performance Policy. The reason for any concern about under-performance must be transparent to the employee and evidence based. The steps to be taken that should lead to an improvement, with reference to the ‘What’ and the ‘How’, must be clearly explained.

Managers should initiate supportive steps to improve performance starting with more frequent performance discussions to monitor performance and check on progress. Support during informal action Members may seek advice and support from their PCS Representative when a manager raises concerns about poor performance. PCS has raised concerns about best practice for providing support in certain circumstances and discussed the application of a supportive approach for meetings about the introduction of a Performance Improvement Plan. DWP accepts that whilst there is no right to be accompanied at such informal meetings it would be wrong to have a blanket policy to refuse such requests. If, after taking all normal supportive steps under the People Performance process, performance fails to return to its usual level, the manager may discuss a Performance Improvement Plan. If, at this point, an employee wishes to be accompanied by a PCS representative or colleague, their Line Manager has discretion to agree such a request. PCS DWP Group policy supports the principle that if a member wants to be accompanied at any meeting it is best practice to agree such requests. End of year rating The ‘must improve’ rating will include employees whose performance requires improvement and those employees who are being managed under formal unsatisfactory performance procedures. (Procedure 9.7) Performance Management Advice, Q&A 18, confirms that: Employees whose formal poor performance action has ended before the end-of-year review stage should be given a performance rating which takes into account the whole performance period. End-of-year ratings will always be based on a balanced consideration of the employee’s personal performance over the entire year. The reasons for the award of a performance rating must be transparent to the employee. Managers must fully explain the reasons the employee has been awarded a particular rating following the consistency or validation process.

Ratings will not be changed or forced simply to fit the distribution. (Procedure 9.3) DWP grievance procedures The aim of the performance management system is to encourage open and honest discussion between the employee and manager to deal with difficulties or disputes at an early stage so that they can be resolved along the way.

Where possible, it is expected that employees will try to resolve any disagreements informally. Where this is not possible, employees may raise their issue formally under the formal grievance procedures (People Performance Procedure, paragraph 13 / Grievance Policy).

King Jones History of the Branch(es) Quiz As we are now in the last year of the reign of King Jones, we thought that a quiz looking back at the Chairs of predecessor Branches (including King Jones) would be good. This quiz is Google proof, but there are options. The DWP Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch is made up of many former Branches, CSA, LCBB, FC&P, B&N, DSSHQ etc. Also there have been many changes down the years with Preston, Department of Health, ITSA, and WPA Branches forming and rejoining, and several mergers of Unions; so there isn’t an absolute strict lineage from one organisation to the next. Frankly the “family tree” of the predecessor Branches would take up most of this edition of Hard Copy. However we have chosen for this quiz the former Lancashire Central Benefits Branch (LCBB) - which in itself was called NFCO until the early 90’s - and have listed the Chairs of that Branch from the arrival on the scene of Martin until now. Three people have been removed from the list at “A”, “B” and “C”. The three options for the missing people are Tim Pearson, Martin Jones and Georgina Richardson, but can you place them in the correct order? All you have to do is circle the one you think should be at that place in the chronological list. Fill in the options below.

LCBB Chairs 1976 to 2003, beginning with the earliest: Olive Driver

Chris Wheeldon

Olive Driver

Ted Nuttall

Chris Wheeldon

“A” Tim Pearson Martin Jones Georgina Richardson

Cliff Sale

“B” Tim Pearson Martin Jones Georgina Richardson

Bruce Briggs

Jon Colgan

“C” Tim Pearson Martin Jones Georgina Richardson

Andrew Jones Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I don’t appear to be in this quiz, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than 7th of September 2012. Please note this is a shorter timescale than normal. The winner will receive a mystery prize. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

King Jones

Mental health chief quits welfare panel The head of a mental health charity has left a government panel implementing changes to the welfare system, describing the system as 'deeply flawed.' Chief executive of Mind Paul Farmer said he quit the government's review panel for the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) because ministers refused to listen to his criticism of the fitness-to-work test. But employment minister Chris Grayling said Mr Farmer was asked to leave after Mind began legal action over the WCA tests. The tests determine if people are eligible for Employment Support Allowance (ESA), the successor to incapacity benefit. Mind's Paul Farmer told the BBC the government's claim that 37 per cent figure of those assessed were fit for work was 'likely to be overstated'. He said he had resigned because his concerns, as part of the four-person advisory panel, were not being 'appropriately listened to'. He added: 'The test itself is not fit for purpose. It's extremely crude.' Some 50 per cent of people deemed fit to work have appealed the decision and 50 per cent of those have been successful, Mr Farmer said. Recently the TUC said the tests were being used to kick people off benefits, not help them. Firms could benefit from better sick leave rights Workers who fall sick during their annual leave are entitled to take corresponding paid leave at a later date, the European Union's top court has ruled. And the ruling could be good news for businesses too, with a forthcoming US study linking paid sick leave to a dramatic reduction in workplace injuries and related costs. The European Court of Justice ruling, which is legally binding throughout the EU including the UK, came on 21 June in a case against a group of department stores taken by four Spanish trade union organisations. 'The right to paid annual leave cannot be interpreted restrictively,' the court ruled. It said the EU Working Time Directive grants workers a right to at least four weeks' paid annual leave 'even where such leave coincides with periods of sick leave.' The ECJ found 'the point at which that temporary incapacity arose is irrelevant. Consequently, the worker is entitled to take paid annual leave which coincides with a period of sick leave at a later point in time, irrespective of the point at which the incapacity for work arose.' According to an earlier ECJ ruling, workers who fall sick before a period of annual leave can also reschedule that leave period

so that it does not clash with their sick leave. A US study to be published in the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health links access to paid sick leave to a substantial reduction in occupational injuries. It will say: 'With all other variables held constant, workers with access to paid sick leave were 28 per cent less likely than workers without access to paid sick leave to be injured.' The authors conclude: 'Our findings suggest that, similar to other investments in worker safety and health, introducing or expanding paid sick leave programmes might help businesses reduce the incidence of non-fatal occupational injuries, particularly in high-risk sectors and occupations.' Businesses don't care if staff suffer Many employees feel it to be true and now research has proved it - businesses really don't care how constant change affects their staff. Business failure is directly related to senior managers not understanding or caring that change can knock a workforce off its feet, according to researchers from the University of Portsmouth Business School. Gary Rees said he and co-author Sally Rumbles were 'alarmed' by the findings. 'Employees are an organisation's most valuable asset and collectively have the power to help businesses survive and thrive in bad times as well as in good. Managers seem to think they have a licence to change, but our research has shown high-level executives admit only about a third of changes they've made are successful and have helped sustain their company through turbulent times.' He added: 'Employers and senior managers need to stop foisting continual change upon their staff in a bid to stay viable as a business. The secret is not to ignore the fact change can threaten the staff who, in turn, can become exhausted, cynical or depressed, which destabilises the organisation.' Sally Rumbles said: 'The worst thing is those who are more likely to burnout in the workplace are the most engaged and hardworking staff. If a business loses those people then it risks destabilising the business. Instead of seeing people as the most important asset and what gives a business its competitive advantage, too many senior managers think what is good for business is good for the workers.' She added: 'Continual change can feel like bereavement and employees need time to recover and adjust after change, not be thrust again and again into new periods of uncertainty and new initiatives and restructuring. Businesses need to plan change, execute it and then tell staff the turmoil is over.' The research is published in the International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management.

The following details have been supplied by:

The facts about facility time

The government has announced its intention to drastically cut "the taxpayers' subsidy of unions in the civil service". We look at how PCS reps can make the case to defend facilities time, which the TUC estimates saves employers in the private and public sectors £701 million annually

Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said in October that unions’ support from the taxpayer had “got out of hand”. He made clear that the government would be consulting on the possibility of limiting how long civil servants can spend on union work.

In February Nick Hurd, parliamentary secretary for the Cabinet Office, indicated the topics to be included in consultation with the civil service unions, which he said would “start imminently”. He highlighted the following areas:

• Reduction in overall facility time • Ending or limiting the practice of 100% facility time • Ending paid time-off for trade union activities (as opposed to duties) • Developing a common system for reporting and monitoring across the civil service.

Public attacks

PCS awaits formal notification of the government’s proposals but the scene has been set by recent vitriolic attacks on facility time arrangements in parliament and the press. This campaign has been orchestrated by the Taxpayers’ Alliance (TA) and a new body called the Trade Union Reform Campaign (TURC).

The aims of the TURC group are:

1. Public bodies should not pay for time spent by employees on trade union activity 2. The Trade Union Modernisation and Trade Union Learning Fund should be scrapped 3. Public bodies should charge commercial rates for trade union use of facilities 4. Public bodies should not be involved in the collection of trade union dues 5. Until TURC’s objectives are achieved, all public money, resources, paid and unpaid time-off given to trade unions should be accounted for and regularly published.

Separating fact from fiction

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "At a time of unprecedented change for the civil service, Mr Maude should sit down with us to discuss how best to handle employee relations for the good of his staff and his organisation. "It would be very disappointing if he refused to do this and instead sought simply to undermine union reps who bring huge value to the civil service and our economy."

Following the minister’s announcement of the likely focus of changes, PCS is awaiting a meeting with the director of the Civil Service Workforce team at the Cabinet Office and the commencement of formal central consultation. Groups and full-time officers are resisting attempts by employers to unilaterally cut facility time allowances.

The union along with our parliamentary group and the TUC, which produced the report “separating fact from fiction”, have strongly put our arguments during the debates so far.

Read the TUC report: http://tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/206/FacilityTimeSeparatingFactfromFiction.pdf

Statutory entitlements

UK regulations on trade unions allow representatives of a recognised union to be granted time off for union duties and activities. This is commonly referred to as “facility time”.

Employers should grant paid time-off for trade union duties, which means activities connected with collective bargaining with the employer and the performance of any functions on behalf of employees. There is also a right to time off for training that is approved by the recognised union or by the TUC.There are specific provisions about facility time for health and safety representatives and union learning representatives. Cont.

Considerable benefits

There are considerable benefits derived from reps’ work. Facilities time accounts for just 0.2% of staff time across the whole civil service but reps spend about half of their allotted hours in negotiations with managers on issues that used to be handled nationally. A recent government survey found reps in the public sector contribute up to 100,000 unpaid hours of their own time each week, and TUC data shows one in six union reps say less than a quarter of the time they spend on union duties is paid by their employer. For every pound spent on union facility time in the public sector, between £3 and £9 is returned in accrued benefits.

Research by the TUC, using the government's own figures, also shows reps bring benefits to our economy worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year. By agreement and at managers' discretion, some union reps are allowed some time away from their jobs to negotiate with employers, represent members and deal with health and safety issues, and staff skills and training.

Top business people agree facility time is a great investment

In the TUC report ‘Facility time for union reps: Separating fact from fiction’ a number of employers in the public sector talk positively of the paid time-off given to union reps and the benefits this brings to their organisations. Among these contributions are improved workforce skills, advice on

workplace safety, and early resolution of problems.

The Confederation of British Industry said: “We believe that modern representatives have a lot to give to their fellow employees and to the organisations that employ them.”

Liz Chandler, Merseytravel's director of corporate development, said: “We greatly value the contribution made by union reps and the relationship that managers have with them.

"We regard the cost of paid time-off as an investment on which the organisation has had a significant return, reducing sickness and grievances, supporting succession planning and improvements to customer care.”

Important part of success

Barry Rowland, chief executive, Newcastle City Council, said: “Newcastle City Council has sustained excellent industrial relations through an extended period of unprecedented change. The full support of unions and the involvement of workers from across the organisation has been instrumental in helping us achieve budget savings of £44m in the current financial year and to develop proposals to save a further £30m next year.”

Independent evidence and views

There is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates the value of trade union

representatives to employer organisations and employees. Here is some information to support your public and workplace discussions:

• The Union Advantage (TUC 2009) http://www.tuc.org.uk/union/tuc-17340-f0.cfm

• Unions at Work (South West TUC January 2012) http://www.tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/192/UnionsAtWorkJan2012.pdf

• Reps in action: how workplaces can gain from modern union representation. http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file51155.pdf

Key stats

£701 million – amount TUC estimates facilities time saves employers in the public and private sector

100,000 - unpaid hours reps spend on union duties revealed in a recent government survey

£1 – for every pound spent on union facility time in the public sector up to £9 is returned in accrued benefits

¼ - TUC data shows one in six union reps say less than a quarter of the time they spend on union duties is paid by their employer

0.2% - Amount of staff time across the civil service accounted for by facilities time

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group: Changes to Private User Scheme The DWP has introduced some changes to the Business Travel Policy affecting PUS vehicles. The changes will mostly affect new users but current users will be subject to an immediate review of use and this will be followed up by an annual assessment. For existing users The qualification criteria will remain

unchanged in that the vehicle must be used for business journeys at least 75 days a year.

There will be no change to current contributions where the criteria are still met but where they are not met contributions will rise to 50% of the monthly lease charge. If there is a compelling personal or business need this change will not happen.

For new PUS contracts The qualifying criteria will change to

business journeys of at least 75 days per year and 6,000 business miles per year, there may be exceptions where there is a business need.

The DWP standard vehicle will come from the ‘small’ category e.g. Ford Fiesta, with an option for a medium or

large car with an additional cost to the user.

The driver will contribute at least 50% of the lease cost of the small vehicle, with DWP contributing the rest up to a maximum of £105 per month.

All PUS vehicles will be subject to an annual review to check the criteria are still being met and where the driver fails to achieve the 75 days plus 6,000 miles, the driver contribution will rise by 10% of the monthly lease cost unless there is a compelling reason for the shortfall.

Cost Cutting PCS has raised a number of concerns with DWP particularly around the issue of the increased costs for members. The DWP stated they have reviewed the scheme with a view to getting better value for money for the Department. We believe that this will discourage staff from using the scheme as the cost is becoming prohibitive for members who are already struggling with low pay. DWP have stated that if staff decide they no longer want to take part in the scheme, then the shortfall will be made up from the Official Vehicle fleet. They also believe that this change will contribute to the DWP’s environmental obligations. While PCS is not opposed to the DWP making a contribution towards sustainability, there are concerns that these changes will mean that staff will no longer be able to afford the PUS and it may cause some members financial hardship. Furthermore, those users who are based in urban areas may have difficulties in doing the 6,000 miles

required by the new criteria and there could be a consequential impact on getting the work done. The DWP has gone ahead and implemented the changes despite PCS’ objections. They stated that they will support existing users as much as they can to assist them in making informed decisions about future participation in the scheme, so they can opt for a more environmentally friendly and lower cost vehicle. PCS still has concerns about the impact that this may have on members who use PUS vehicles.

Finally - New PUS Mileage Rates from 1st June 2012

HMRC have announced their PUS mileage rates from 1st June 2012 and they are detailed below:

Engine Size Diesel

1600cc or less 12p

1601cc to 2000cc 15p

Over 2000cc 18p

Engine Size Petrol LPG

1400cc or less 15p 11p

1401cc to 2000cc 18p 13p

Over 2000cc 26p 19p

Yuckk!, Yuckk!, Yuckk!, Carl here with a quiz about my favourite subject, cartoons – dagnabbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am new to this quiz setting malarkey; I am the new boy in the Branch, recently taking over as the Deputy Secretary at Warbreck. Question 1 What type of nuggets did Klondike Pete used to advertise? a) Silver b) Golden c) Frosted d) Chicken e) Turkey

Question 2 Which rabbit did Yosemite Sam dislike? Was it?

a) Peter Rabbit b) Thumper c) Harvey d) Br’er Rabbit e) Bugs Bunny Question 3 Penelope Pitstop appeared in which of the following cartoons. Was it? a) Boss Cat b) The Flintstones c) Wacky races d) Stop the Pigeon e) Dastardly & Muttley

Question 4 What was the registration of Dastardly and Muttley’s car in wacky races. Was it. a) 00 b) 11 c) 22 d) 33 e) 66

Question 5 Dastardly and Muttley were two of the characters in the Vulture Squadron. What was the name of the two other characters in the Vulture squadron? Was it.

a) Cannon and Ball b) Little and Large c) Salt and Pepper d) Klunk and Zill e) Mick and Grant Question 6 What type of doctor did the Cartoons sing about? Was it? a) Locum b) Newly qualified c) House d) Witch e) Occupational Health Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I like a good laugh, you have to have a laugh around here, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross, to arrive no later than the 7th of September 2012. Note that I quite a short timescale this time. The winner and a runner-up will receive a mystery prize. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Carl