PUBLIC EYE Prospect members in public service www.prospect.org.uk • Issue 3, July 2014 Prospect • PublicEye – July 2014 Prospect believes in effective performance management, but has grave reservations about the system being rolled out across the civil service PROSPECT WROTE to Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the civil service, in July seeking a meeting to find solutions to the growing number of problems with performance management. In the letter, deputy general secretary Leslie Manasseh asked Sir Bob if the Cabinet Office can bring together a group of senior policy and operational people to meet Prospect urgently, before bad practice becomes embedded. He pointed out that the PM system was introduced without consultation and with no opportunity to work out ways of avoiding well-documented pitfalls. The key points of the letter are reproduced below. Guided distribution Despite efforts from the centre to ensure that there is no forced distribution of performance markings, line managers are under pressure to deliver quotas. Explicit instructions or more subtle pressure both play a part in the drive to fit a pre-determined “performance curve”. This pressure is likely to grow year on year. It will discredit the whole system, and destroy trust and confidence. Fractured relationships Systems based on the desire to identify and weed out allegedly poor performers tend to corrupt the relationship between managers, people reporting directly to them, FALLING MORALE THIS comment is typical of the feedback Prospect has received from members who are victims of this unfair system: “On Monday I was notified by email that I have received a box 3. There was no prior indication that I was not doing my job, on the contrary I have some outstanding reports in my 25-year career… I am currently in a state of shock… I discussed my grading with my line manager and a number of peers with whom I work closely. “All were genuinely shocked… I now have a label that cannot be removed from my record. “My psychological contract with the civil service has been well and truly broken. Had I not had a mortgage I would have walked out on Monday.” Performance management – fix the system before it’s too late other team members and colleagues. They discourage good line man- agement and are more likely to create cynicism, inconsistency and unfair- ness – with a corrosive effect on team performance. Over engineering Far too much effort will be spent on finding ways of describing and measuring performance and far too little time spent actually trying to improve it. Departments are already having to increase resources to deal with an expected surge in grievances. In the absence of meaningful negotiations in too many places, we are left with no alternative but to advise members formally to challenge their mark. Equalities There is strong evidence that employees with some protected characteristics are disadvantaged by performance management systems, particularly black and minority ethnic and disabled employees. People in these groups are disproportionately likely to receive low marks. Mechanisms are needed to prevent this. Gaming the system There is evidence of line managers “overmarking” in case a moderation panel adjusts downwards. Line managers are also seeking to allocate the required number of box 3s on a rota basis – known colloquially as “taking one for the team”. The scope for inconsistencies is enormous. We have received reports about moderation panels that indicate worrying levels of bureaucracy and confusion, suggesting they do not have the knowledge, time or motivation to do this job properly. ■ ■ A■poster■is■on■the■back■page.■Find■more■resources■at■■ www.prospect.org.uk/CSperformance
Transcript
PUBLICEYEProspect members in public service
www.prospect.org.uk • Issue 3, July 2014
Prospect • PublicEye – July 2014
Prospect believes in effective performance management, but has grave reservations about the system being rolled out across the civil service
PROSPECT WROTE to Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the civil service, in July seeking a meeting to find solutions to the growing number of problems with performance management.
In the letter, deputy general secretary Leslie Manasseh asked Sir Bob if the Cabinet Office can bring together a group of senior policy and operational people to meet Prospect urgently, before bad practice becomes embedded.
He pointed out that the PM system was introduced without consultation and with no opportunity to work out ways of avoiding well-documented pitfalls.
The key points of the letter are reproduced below.
Guided distributionDespite efforts from the centre to ensure that there is no forced distribution of performance markings, line managers are under pressure to deliver quotas.
Explicit instructions or more subtle pressure both play a part in the drive to fit a pre-determined “performance curve”.
This pressure is likely to grow year on year. It will discredit the whole system, and destroy trust and confidence.
Fractured relationshipsSystems based on the desire to identify and weed out allegedly poor performers tend to corrupt the relationship between managers, people reporting directly to them,
FALLING MORALETHIS comment is typical of the feedback Prospect has received from members who are victims of this unfair system:
“On Monday I was notified by email that I have received a box 3. There was no prior indication that I was not doing my job, on the contrary I have some outstanding reports in my 25-year career… I am currently in a state of shock… I discussed my grading with my line manager and a number of peers with whom I work closely.
“All were genuinely shocked… I now have a label that cannot be removed from my record.
“My psychological contract with the civil service has been well and truly broken. Had I not had a mortgage I would have walked out on Monday.”
Performance management – fix the system before it’s too late
other team members and colleagues. They discourage good line man-
agement and are more likely to create cynicism, inconsistency and unfair-ness – with a corrosive effect on team performance.
Over engineering Far too much effort will be spent on finding ways of describing and measuring performance and far too little time spent actually trying to improve it.
Departments are already having to increase resources to deal with an expected surge in grievances. In the absence of meaningful negotiations in too many places, we are left with no alternative but to advise members formally to challenge their mark.
EqualitiesThere is strong evidence that employees with some protected characteristics are disadvantaged by performance management systems, particularly black and minority ethnic and disabled employees. People in these groups are disproportionately likely to receive low marks. Mechanisms are needed to prevent this.
Gaming the systemThere is evidence of line managers “overmarking” in case a moderation panel adjusts downwards. Line managers are also seeking to allocate the required number of box 3s on a rota basis – known colloquially as “taking one for the team”.
The scope for inconsistencies is enormous.
We have received reports about moderation panels that indicate worrying levels of bureaucracy and confusion, suggesting they do not have the knowledge, time or motivation to do this job properly.
Unions to work together on sustainabilityTRADE union members working in government departments, executive agencies and other public bodies in England are being asked to co-operate on sustainability.
Following a meeting with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Prospect, PCS and the FDA all agreed to look at bringing members and departmental green networks together for joint action on sustainability targets. As part of these efforts, Prospect has created an online questionnaire to:
● identify members already part of sustainability champion networks
● identify areas willing to participate ● pool resources and share ideas.
One-stop shop for documents from Civil Service Employee Policy unit
NEW AUDIT AGENCYTHE government is setting up a new Treasury agency to deliver internal audit services for government departments.
XDIAS, the cross-departmental internal audit service, currently provides services to eight government departments and 40 arm’s length bodies.
XDIAS will be set up as a separate executive agency on 1 April 2015. Around 149 staff are likely to be moved to the new entity.
The agency could employ between 600 and 800 staff as more departments begin to use its services.
The staff transfers will be covered by a Cabinet Office statement of practice (http://bit.ly/cosps_transfer).
Unions are seeking a meeting with the team leading this change.
PROSPECT TO CONTRIBUTE TO DIGITAL GOVERNMENT POLICY INITIATIVEPROSPECT has met Labour MP Chi Onwurah to discuss and contribute to her work on formulating policy for a digital government.
The union has produced a briefing document for Onwurah which explores areas
of overlapping interest that Prospect might share with an incoming Labour government.
The submission says the key to creating a digital government is continuous and quality training for civil servants and championing of
professional grades.Prospect also recommends
establishing a civil service university and a programme to encourage more women in IT.
CS circulars onlineYOU can find all Prospect circulars and documents relating to the civil service at https://library.prospect.org.uk/browse/topic/civil-service
DOCUMENTS FROM the Civil Service Employee Policy unit will soon be accessible via Prospect’s website.
The CSEP unit is responsible for producing personnel policies for use by departments and agencies on issues including performance management, disciplinary and grievance procedures, mobility and career breaks.
None of the policies has been formally agreed with Prospect or other constituent unions, but unions were given the opportunity to comment on some of the key principles.
The policies set out advice and guidance on any particular issue. Employers do not have to follow them and can introduce their own arrangements – subject to discussion with their departmental trade unions.
Negotiator Dave Allen, who represents Prospect in discussions with CSEP and other Next Generation
HR units, said the web page would be an invaluable resource for representatives and members.
“It will give representatives access to the source CSEP documents so that they can compare them with any proposals that come from their own departments.”
Unions have expressed their frustration at the low level of consultations with CSEP. A formal review of these arrangements is about to start.
Allen said Prospect would be pushing for greater engagement with CSEP on developing and amending policies.
■■ Allen■–■access■to■source■CSEP■documents
Published by Prospect, New Prospect House, 8 Leake Street, London SE1 7NN
ENGLAND FACES a 10% chance of a catastrophic flood within the next two decades, causing more than £10bn worth of damage.
That was the stark warning from an independent committee in July, which said such a flood would cause ten times more damage than last winter’s tidal surge and storms and be three to four times worse than the widespread flooding of 2007.
Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy was produced by the committee on climate change’s adaptation sub-committee. It also set out the facts on Environment Agency funding.
“In 2014-15 almost three-quarters of the flood defence systems in England will not be maintained according to their identified needs,” the report said. “This is despite additional maintenance funding being provided by the government after the 2013-14 winter storms.
“The extra £270m announced since the 2013-14 winter flooding will be a temporary funding boost, primarily to repair defences that were damaged in the storms. Investment after 2015-16 will fall back to previously announced plans and
then remain static in real terms until 2021.”
Numbers of flood risk management staff within the agency fell by 800 (20%) after the 2010 spending review, with a decrease of over 400 in the asset management teams responsible for maintaining defences and responding to flood incidents.
The Environment Agency has 40% fewer staff than in 2010 to advise local authorities and developers on planning applications in flood risk areas. The consequent need to prioritise its advice towards major planning
applications of more than ten dwellings means an estimated 12,000 minor applications in the floodplain did not receive site-specific advice in 2013.
The committee urged the government to publish evidence showing the impact of job losses on important flood risk management functions.
● Specialists from Prospect areas, including BRE (building research), and HR Wallingford and WRc (water research), contributed to the report.
GOCO route wrong for Highways AgencyGO VIRAL TO SAVE KEW
BIOLOGIST Jane Goodall has described budget cuts at Kew as “unbelievably stupid”.
Goodall wrote to then environment secretary Owen Paterson to oppose the budget cuts in July and told the Observer: “This is the mother of all other botanical research centres. Britain should be proud of it, not dismantling it. It is like tearing up the Union Jack… I want my protest to go viral. I want thousands and thousands of people to protest as well.”
Others condemning the cuts include Sir David Attenborough and newsreader, Anna Ford.
■■ Sign■the■petition■at■http://bit.ly/save_kew
■■ http://kewcuts.org■■ http://bit.ly/goodall_
kew
Museums health checkTHE Museums Association has launched its fourth annual cuts survey to build a comprehensive picture of the state of the sector. Those working in any museum at all levels are urged to fill in the confidential online questionnaire by 8 August.
■■ http://bit.ly/2014_MAsurvey
PROSPECT HAS expressed concerns about plans to change the Highways Agency from a public entity, accountable to government ministers, into a government-owned company (GOCO).
The union fears it will leave the agency without the teeth to oppose developments that could adversely impact the road network.
Prospect sent a briefing to the House of Lords before it debated the Infrastructure Bill. As well as changing HA’s status, the bill will:
● create an arm’s length body – the Strategic Highways Company – to manage, maintain and upgrade the strategic road network
● provide long-term funding through a Road Investment Strategy.
Negotiator John Higgins
said: “At present the Highways Agency can intervene and require developers to contribute to the cost of road upgrades. We fear that the new status means it will lose that clout, especially if this is a stepping stone to privatisation and the introduction of road tolls.”
Other concerns include the lack
of guarantees over staff terms and conditions and whether the GOCO’s new regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation, will introduce economic controls to achieve cost reductions.
The Environment Agency has 40% fewer staff than in 2010 to advise local authorities and developers on planning applications in flood risk areas
Prospect • PublicEye – July 2014NEWS 3
OVER TWO years ago Prospect members working in the public sector voted to accept a series of agreements with the government on reforms to the main public service pension schemes.
Changes to the main unfunded public service pension schemes will come into
effect from 1 April 2015. Here are the answers to some of the most commonly asked questions about the new civil service pension scheme arrangements.
Why did Prospect recommend that members vote for the agreements on public service pension reform?
The reforms to these pension schemes are far from ideal. However, the final agreements put to members were much better than the government’s original proposals. Improvements to the offer were largely secured by members who participated in the TUC day of action on public service pensions in November 2011.
As a result the benefits from the reformed schemes will actually be better for many members than the benefits
Get ready for public sector pension changes
Prospect pensions officer Neil Walsh answers your questions about the impact of changes to public sector pension schemes on different groups of members
they could get from the existing schemes. Not accepting the agreements could have resulted in withdrawal of the significant improvements members had secured.
What were the improvements that members secured as a result of the action on 30 November 2011?
The two most significant concessions secured during the entire process were:
● allowing members within 10 years of pension age to remain in their existing pension scheme
● improving the value of the pension accrued in the new scheme by 8%.
These improvements were a successful outcome from the day of action.
Will I stay in my existing pension scheme or move to the new scheme?
If you were within 10 years of pension age on 1 April 2012 (ie aged 50 or above in a final salary scheme or 55 or above in Nuvos) then you will stay in the same section of the pension scheme with no changes to your benefits, as long
Prospect • PublicEye – July 2014
4 PENSIONS
as you remain in the civil service. Everyone else will move into the new pension scheme at some stage. Those who were 13.5 or more years from pension age on 1 April 2012 will go into the new scheme on 1 April 2015. Those who were between 10 and 13.5 years from pension age on 1 April 2012 will have a choice between going into the new scheme on 1 April 2015 or staying in their existing scheme until a later date (up to April 2022, depending on how close they were to pension age on 1 April 2012).
I will have a choice about when to join the new scheme; can you advise me what to do?
Those who were between 10 and 13.5 years from pension age on 1 April 2012 will have a choice between October and December this year about whether to join the new scheme immediately on 1 April 2015 or stay in their existing scheme for a further period. This is an important choice that members should take time to consider. Prospect will hold meetings at workplaces, in city centre locations and by teleconference to give every member facing this choice the opportunity to ask any question about it. Further details on the support for this group will be provided in due course.
I am going into the new pension scheme, my pension age will be 68; how can this scheme be better than the scheme I am currently in?
The higher pension age is only one aspect of the new pension scheme. The accrual rate (the proportion of earnings built up as a pension in the scheme) is almost 40% more generous in the new scheme. Whether you build up more pension in the new scheme than you would have in the existing one depends on a number of factors such as your career progression and when you choose to retire but, for example, someone getting pay increases that matched inflation who retired at 65 would be likely to get more pension in the new scheme than they would have had in the final salary schemes.
So I do not have to work until State Pension Age?
No. You can retire and draw your pension at any point from minimum pension age (55 in the new scheme). The question of when to retire is likely to be a personal one – members will retire when (a) they want to and (b) they have built up enough pension to enjoy a comfortable standard of living in retirement. For the vast majority of members the new scheme will provide sufficient benefits to retire well before State Pension Age.
What salary will my final salary pension benefits (from Classic/Classic Plus/Premium) be based on?
These benefits will be calculated according to the rules of the particular final salary section of the scheme you were in and
based on earnings up to the point you leave the civil service (NB not earnings up to the point you joined the new pension scheme). Similarly the new pension benefits are based on your average salary while in that scheme, and not the average salary over your whole career in the civil service.
Can I draw my final salary pension benefits at 60 unreduced?
Yes. You can draw these separately from the benefits in the new pension scheme. These benefits will not be actuarially reduced if drawn at or after 60.
What are the contribution rates from April 2015?
These are shown in the table below:
Actual EarningsCurrently in Classic
Currently in Premium/Nuvos/
Classic Plus
Up to £15,000pa 3.00% 4.60%
£15,001-£21,000 4.60% 4.60%
£21,001-£47,000 5.45% 5.45%
£47,001-£150,000 7.35% 7.35%
Over £150,000 8.05% 8.05%
My contribution rate will be higher from April 2015; I thought the contribution increases stopped in April 2014?
In the current final schemes there are two sets of contribution rates and two sets of benefits. Those in the Classic section who joined before October 2002 pay an average contribution rate of 4.7% of pay and receive lower benefits than those who joined afterwards, who pay an average contribution rate of 6.7%. When a single benefit structure applies from April 2015 there has to be a single contribution structure. This involves moving everyone to an average contribution rate of 5.6% of pay. It represents an increase for Classic members and a reduction for everyone else.
Will the new contribution structure apply to those staying in their existing schemes?
Yes. Prospect argued that it would be unfair to increase contributions for those staying in Classic (or decrease them for those staying in the other schemes) because their benefits are not changing, but the government decided to do this anyway.
Cabinet Office is launching a new website at the end of July. It will focus entirely on civil service pension arrangements. The new address will be www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk. You can access a full list of Employer Pension Notices at: http://bit.ly/cs_epn
“WHETHER YOU BUILD UP MORE PENSION IN THE NEW SCHEME THAN YOU WOULD HAVE IN THE EXISTING ONE DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS SUCH AS YOUR CAREER PROGRESSION
AND WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO RETIRE”
Prospect • PublicEye – July 20145PENSIONS
Enhance industrial democracyTHE TUC has written to business secretary Vince Cable urging him to modernise the rules that govern strike ballots to bring them into the 21st century.
General secretary Frances O’Grady wants the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills to change the rules so that union members can use their work computers, home laptops, tablets or smartphones to vote in future strike ballots.
The TUC has launched an online petition calling on Vince
Cable and Frances Maude to stop ignoring sensible proposals to increase turnouts by allowing unions to go digital – www.tuc.org.uk/letusvote
THE PERSONAL data of tens of thousands of civil servants is likely to be outsourced to India – despite prime minister David Cameron’s claim in January that there was “a chance for Britain to become the ‘Re-Shore Nation’”.
Cameron told world leaders in Davos: “…if we make the right decisions, we may also see more of what has been a small but discernible trend where some jobs that were once offshored are coming back from east to west.”
Those words will not ring true for 500 civil servants losing their jobs this year in Cardiff, Leeds and Sheffield. PCS union says offices in York, Alnwick, Blackpool, Newcastle and Peterborough are also at longer-term risk.
The job losses are the result of outsourcing IT, finance, procurement and payroll functions to Shared Services Connected Ltd.
SSCL was established in November 2013 to run services that handle the personal data of tens of thousands of civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. It will also handle commercially sensitive information relating to government contracts and tendering.
When the Cabinet Office advertised for bidders to become majority partners in SSCL in April last
New plan to boost young members PROSPECT IS to boost recruitment of and engagement with young workers.
It has drawn up a plan to: ● involve existing young members
more ● identify potential young members
in Prospect workplaces ● increase visibility of the union in
schools, colleges and universities.With most members aged over
40, a vibrant Young Professionals’ Network is vital for Prospect’s future.
The existing YPN will be relaunched at a weekend school in Leicestershire in October, where three or four young professionals’ officers will be elected.
The event will also plan activities for the TUC’s young workers’ month
Shared services jobs face transfer overseas
year, those selected all had offshoring functions as part of their bids.
Prospect deputy general secretary Leslie Manasseh said: “The sole motive for off-shoring is to reduce costs. We do
not believe this is appropriate. “We also have many concerns
about the security of sensitive data and offshoring/outsourcing by its nature creates a less secure environment than in-house management.”
Unions have asked Steria, which has a 75% stake in SSCL, and the Cabinet Office team overseeing the project to clarify what work will be transferred, what data it will involve, what security measures will exist and how much will be saved.
More info ● National Audit Office report:
http://bit.ly/nao_shared ● Institute of Employment Rights:
in November – see http://bit.ly/young_workers_month
Prospect is also recruiting a new full-time organiser, who will spend at least half their time on young professionals’ issues.
Mike Graham, Prospect’s head of organising, said: “Young members are our lifeblood and we need to invest time, money and other resources to encourage them to be part of our union.”
PROSPECT REPS at the Scottish Government have expressed reservations about the organisation’s latest pay offer, running from August 2014 to July 2016.
Branch secretary David Avery said: “The committee is recommending a qualified rejection. Although Scottish Government officials have engaged in real negotiations for the first time since 2008, we believe they can and should
have done more to meet our claim.” Prospect negotiator Alan Denney
added: “It was never going to be possible to get an acceptable offer within an unacceptable pay policy. We will be calling on ministers to end the 1% cap on basic pay.”
The offer includes: ● a consolidated 2.5% increase over
two years for staff on scale maxima above £21,000
● a consolidated increase of £400 for pay steps below £21,000 in both years
● progression will be paid to all staff in addition to the increases on the maxima
● changes to some pay ranges to shorten progression journey times, reduce overlaps and introduce gaps between pay ranges
● extending the guarantee of no com-pulsory redundancies until 31 July 2016.
DfE OFFER IS ‘REAL TERMS PAY CUT’PROSPECT’S branch committee at the Department for Education is rejecting the employer’s latest pay offer – but will ballot members to see if they agree.
The offer to Prospect, PCS and FDA members, effective from April this year, includes:
● a 1% increase to all DfE pay minima and maxima ● for those with an “achieved” or ”outstanding”
performance rating, an increase equal to the greater of 1% of salary, 1% of the mid-point, or £350
● for the top 10% of performers, a non-consolidated performance award of between £1,400 and £3,200
● for the next 15%, a non-consolidated performance award of between £1,050 and £2,200
● for all staff with a performance mark of “achieved” or better, a non-consolidated award of £300.
Negotiator Julie Flanagan said: “The branch finds the offer unacceptable and in real terms, it is a pay cut for our members. We recognise the Treasury pay cap has resulted in a fundamental impact on our ability to negotiate pay.
“However, it would be churlish of Prospect not to recognise that the department has sought to give staff a consolidated pay award of at least 1% and to maintain the non-consolidated payments to those with an ‘achieved’ box mark, not always replicated in other parts of the civil service.”
USE FLEXIBILITY TO ATTRACT SPECIALISTS, SAYS PROSPECTPROSPECT has called on the Ministry of Defence to reallocate some of its non-consolidated performance pay bill to address recruitment and retention problems.
It wants MOD to use the flexibilities allowed by the Treasury to tackle problems around recruiting people
with particular specialist skills, particularly in Defence Equipment & Support.
Prospect’s 2014 claim calls for: ● a consolidated rise that
at least compensates for the average 3.2% pension contribution increases imposed between 2012-14 (non-industrial pay scales would have to be
revalorised by 16%) ● an agreed formula to
distribute the (currently unallocated) element of non-consolidated pay from the performance-related pay pot (cut from 2.7% to 1.8% in 2012)
● an agreed formula to distribute any element of non-consolidated pay released
through the current review of pay-related allowances
● the non-consolidated performance pay scheme to be revised to deliver 1.8% to all staff.
