You will be aware that following the straw poll and then consultative ballot that talks have taken place regarding a potential settlement to the dispute.
We have kept members informed as to the latest position in a series of circulars, however as there has now been a substantive offer from the employer with proposals to resolve the dispute then the Branch Executive Committee believe that you, the members need to consider the proposals. Due to this we have arranged members’ meetings as follows:
Thursday 31st July 2008:
10:15am Warbreck Canteen or
2:15pm Warbreck Canteen
We have requested time for you to attend a meeting.
Details of the employer’s offer will be discussed at the meetings and a collective view will be taken.
If you have read this page and are not a member; then please complete the membership form found at the link above (top right) of this site.
30.7.08
National Black Members Seminar
National Black Members Seminar
21st Century Challenges & Opportunities
17-19 October 2008
Ashford International
Ashford, Kent
21st Century Challenges & Opportunities
17-19 October 2008
Ashford International
Ashford, Kent
Venue/Date
The annual residential Seminar organized for African, Asian, Chinese, Caribbean, etc, PCS black members will be held from Friday 17 October to Sunday 19 October in the Ashford International, Ashford, Kent. The seminar will commence approximately at 1.30 pm on the Friday, ending no later than 1 p.m. on Sunday 19 October 2008.
Please note that at national level PCS uses the term 'black' in the political context to encompass people who have the potential to experience discrimination based on skin colour.
Theme
This year's seminar theme is 'Equality, Freedom & Justice' Contemporary Challenges & Opportunities.
The overall aim is to increase the participation levels of black members in union activities and involve participants in a consultation about how they wish to organize and function in the union's democratic structures.
Target Audience
The primary target groups include black members who hold any of the following positions:
· Branch Secretaries
· Branch Organizers
· Departmental Trade Union reps
· Regional Network Co-ordinators
· GEC members
· Group Black Members sub/advisory committee/Network Coordinators/Chairs
· Branch/workplace reps.
· Equality reps
· Branch Women's reps
· Union Learning Rep Applicants are also invited from
· New members who would like to become active.
· Members with experience of community campaigns
Under- represented Groups
Applicants are particularly welcomed from young members [i.e. people aged 27 or under], women, disabled people, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people as these groups of members are also under represented in the union structures.
Confidentiality
PCS fully appreciates there are special sensitivities pertaining to disability, sexuality and trans issues and gives an assurance that all applications will be treated confidentially.
Participant Numbers
Although the Seminar is organized on a residential basis, members who can travel daily will be expected to do so. The Seminar will be limited to 150 residential participants.
Selection Criteria
Members matching the criteria set out in paragraphs above are invited to self nominate. There is no need to seek endorsement from any branch official.
Completed application forms should be returned to PCS by Monday 15 September 2008. This seminar is popular and is always over subscribed.
It is strongly recommended that all members provide a supporting statement with applications.
Child/Youth Care Facilities
Childcare facilities will be provided at the seminar for children aged between 6 months and 14 years of age. However, places may be limited. Delegates are encouraged to make alternative care arrangements where possible. PCS will provide financial assistance to meet the reasonable costs of additional childcare claims on production of a receipt from a carer.
Travel & Subsistence
The union will meet all reasonable travel, subsistence claims. The hotel accommodation expenses will be paid from central union funds. All participants (including non residential) will be provided with refreshments during the day and lunch on Saturday/Sunday. Anyone staying on residential basis will be provided with an evening meal on the Friday evening; breakfast, lunch and an evening meal on Saturday and breakfast and lunch on Sunday. All participants will be expected to attend for the duration of the Seminar.
Application Forms
Application Forms are attached to this circular. Please duplicate as necessary and pass them on to members who are eligible to attend and you think may be interested in attending the Seminar. Copies may also be obtained by:
- Downloading a copy from the PCS Website here.
- Contacting the Equality Health & Safety Department on: 020 7801 2683
- E-mailing here.
Application Deadline
The deadline for receipt of applications by the Equality Health and Safety Department is Monday 15 September 2008. Successful applicants will be notified by Friday 3 October 2008.
Special Leave
The seminar is a training event organised by the union. Applicants are advised to make early applications for special leave to attend the Seminar as it will be easier to cancel leave arrangements rather than apply for special leave at short notice.
Further Information
Queries or requests for further information about the seminar should be made directly to Lorna Campbell on 020 7801 2683 or by email.
29.7.08
Attendance Management Survey
Thanks to the hundreds of members who have responded to the survey. Thanks also to those members who added their own comments, making us aware of yet more horror stories, but also highlighting the fact that PCS is regularly winning cases for members.The survey closes on 15th August. The more members who reply, the more significant the results will be. The survey does not take long to complete, but will provide us with valuable information which can be used in our discussions with management and our wider campaign to improve the attendance management procedures and stop discrimination against our disabled members. We are not just looking for negative experiences. We are sure that some managers continue to use their discretion and treat members fairly and we want to hear from you whatever your experience, good or bad.
The survey can be accessed on the regional website here. Just click on the appropriate box and click “vote” each time.
Alternatively you can fill in your answers on a MS Word template found here, and email it to Annette Wright or even print it out and fil it in by hand and send it to:
Annette Wright
Pensions Local Service
Longsight Jobcentreplus
123 Clarence Road
Longsight
Manchester
M13 0ZL
Please tell us your views by 15th August. The survey results will be published after this date and will be used to further the campaign.
Thanks for your help.
23.7.08
Southall Black Sisters Victory: Race Relations Act
The information below is an outline of the victory secured by Southall Black Sisters in relation to a challenge to Ealing Council threat to withdraw funding.
As you will see the High Court case concerned the Race Relations Act, in particular s.70 i.e. the legal obligation for public authorities to comply with the general duty to have due regard to
(i) eliminate unlawful discrimination
(ii) promote equality of opportunity and
(iii) promote good relations
as well as the specific duties, to conduct competent race equality impact assessments at the development stages of policy making. The outline judgement indicates that positive action is an appropriate tool to use to redress economic and social disparities.
The outline explanation of the judgement is largely self explanatory and makes informative and interesting reading. It is a good victory for Southall Black Sisters and provides guidance to all those involved in negotiating on equality impact assessments.
Supplied by: Jagdeep Sandhu, DWP Black Members Committee
Southall Black Sisters v Ealing Council
Background
Southall Black Sisters (SBS) is a community based organization that provides advice, advocacy, counselling and support services to black and minority women in Ealing who experience violence and abuse. Since mid 1980’s Ealing council has provided core funding to Southall Black Sisters
The experience and insights gained through SBS work has led to the organization becoming strategically important in providing advice on policy to local, national, government and international professionals. Earlier this year, Ealing Council threatened to withdraw £100,000 funding grant from SBS, unless it reorganised its services to mainstream its work to cover all women. Ealing was of the view that there was no need to offer specialist services to black and minority women and the services offered should be mainstreamed. Ealing made it quite clear that if SBS wished to continue to offer specialized services to cover the needs of black and minority women, it would withdraw its funding. Without securing additional funding this would have had the effect of closing down SBS.
Ealing’s view failed to take account of the unequal social, economic and cultural context which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for black and minority women to access outside help or seek information about their rights. Neither did Ealing take into account that SBS has helped any woman irrespective of ethnicity when approached.
SBS campaigns in such critical areas of work as forced marriage, honour killings, suicides and self harm, religious fundamentalism and immigration difficulties, especially the ‘no recourse to public funds’ would have been drastically cut back .
The suicide rates of Asian women for example, are already three times the national average and homicides - where abusive men and families kill their wives, daughters or daughters-in-law - are also high within some black and minority communities. In all likelihood, any reduction in services would have seen a rise in suicide and homicide rates amongst black and minority women.
Had Ealing Council been successful, the disparate impact on black women would have been devastating. It would have meant that abused black and minority women, who already face considerable racism, discrimination and cultural pressures would no longer have access to a specialist service.
Southall Black Sisters’ Victory against Ealing Council
‘There is no dichotomy between funding specialist services and cohesion; equality is necessary for cohesion to be achieved.’ Lord Justice Moses
On 18 July at the High Court, in a dramatic turn of events, Ealing Council withdrew their case after one and a half days of a hearing which saw their defence rapidly unravelling. From the outset, it became apparent to the presiding judge, Lord Justice Moses and to all those present in the courtroom including the packed public gallery, that Ealing Council was skating on really thin ice in attempting to justify its decision to cut funding to SBS and to commission instead one generic borough wide service on domestic violence on the grounds of ‘equality’ and ‘cohesion’.
Amongst other things, Ealing Council was charged with the failure to:
Have proper regard to the race equality legislation and other equalities duties or its own policies when it made its decision to end funding to SBS. It failed to carry out a full and proper equality impact assessment and when it did, it was only to justify its decision;
Interpret correctly the race equality legislation by deciding that our very name and constitution (to meet the needs of Asian and African-Caribbean women) was in breach of the Race Relations Act because it ‘excluded’ white women;
Interpret correctly the cohesion agenda by assuming that it was contrary to the race equality legislation.
As the two days wore on, Ealing Council found it difficult to maintain its defence in the light of extensive evidence which showed that it had committed a series of fundamental errors and was in fact close to being regarded as having conducted the matter in ‘bad faith’ – a very serious allegation. The judge was disturbed by the way in which the Council had behaved and was demanding that it account for aspects of its actions which he found ‘blood curdling’. The Council had misinterpreted statistics which showed that black and minority women have rates of reporting domestic violence in Ealing that are disproportionate to their size of population and a crucial letter from the author of a report on gaps in domestic violence services in Ealing was not taken into account by the Council when deciding to provide a generic service, leading her to make a formal complaint.
The Council eventually decided to withdraw its case thereby denying SBS the opportunity of having a full judgement setting out the facts of the case and the litany of failures on the part of the Council – which would have been devastating for the Council and in particular for its leader. But we were able to secure a shorter judgement (pending) – which will take the form of guidance to Ealing and hopefully to all other local authorities so that in future they comply properly with the racial and other equalities legislation. Essentially the principles that will be reiterated are:
Local authorities must have proper regard to the Race Relations Act which also means undertaking proper equality impact assessments at the formative stage of the decision making process;
Cohesion does not mean disregarding the need for equality. Local authorities cannot hide behind cohesion arguments to cut specialist service provision;
Positive action is an essential part of the duty to promote racial equality. Special services run for and by BME groups (whatever their name) are not contrary to the Race Relations Act.
This result of all this is that Ealing Council must now go back to the drawing board and although the outcome could be the same again, hopefully, our victory will make it more difficult for it to ignore the guidance and therefore SBS. The Council has agreed to continue to fund SBS at the previous level until it completes the process of commissioning based on any new decision on domestic violence services.
Ealing Council also agreed to pay the costs of our legal representation and unusually the costs of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which intervened in the case as an interested third party. The total costs are likely to amount to about £100,000 – the amount that the Council previously gave SBS on an annual basis!
Victory for the entire voluntary sector
This case has raised important questions about the meaning of equality and cohesion and reminded us of the need to maintain solidarity between white and black women in the face of ‘divide and rule’ tactics. We hope that our victory will encourage other grassroots groups to fight back. We believe this case has set a precedent and that the guidance that will be available should enable all specialist groups to fight for the right to exist as autonomous groups.
When we began the process of challenging Ealing Council exactly one year ago, we were not sure where our journey would lead us. We received tremendous support from our users and many, many other individuals and organisations along the way. It is impossible to list everyone who supported us but we really would not have come this far without such encouragement and support. Above all, the support that we received reminded us of our responsibility in building a civil society based on the principles of justice, equality and humanity.
As you will see the High Court case concerned the Race Relations Act, in particular s.70 i.e. the legal obligation for public authorities to comply with the general duty to have due regard to
(i) eliminate unlawful discrimination
(ii) promote equality of opportunity and
(iii) promote good relations
as well as the specific duties, to conduct competent race equality impact assessments at the development stages of policy making. The outline judgement indicates that positive action is an appropriate tool to use to redress economic and social disparities.
The outline explanation of the judgement is largely self explanatory and makes informative and interesting reading. It is a good victory for Southall Black Sisters and provides guidance to all those involved in negotiating on equality impact assessments.
Supplied by: Jagdeep Sandhu, DWP Black Members Committee
Southall Black Sisters v Ealing Council
Background
Southall Black Sisters (SBS) is a community based organization that provides advice, advocacy, counselling and support services to black and minority women in Ealing who experience violence and abuse. Since mid 1980’s Ealing council has provided core funding to Southall Black Sisters
The experience and insights gained through SBS work has led to the organization becoming strategically important in providing advice on policy to local, national, government and international professionals. Earlier this year, Ealing Council threatened to withdraw £100,000 funding grant from SBS, unless it reorganised its services to mainstream its work to cover all women. Ealing was of the view that there was no need to offer specialist services to black and minority women and the services offered should be mainstreamed. Ealing made it quite clear that if SBS wished to continue to offer specialized services to cover the needs of black and minority women, it would withdraw its funding. Without securing additional funding this would have had the effect of closing down SBS.
Ealing’s view failed to take account of the unequal social, economic and cultural context which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for black and minority women to access outside help or seek information about their rights. Neither did Ealing take into account that SBS has helped any woman irrespective of ethnicity when approached.
SBS campaigns in such critical areas of work as forced marriage, honour killings, suicides and self harm, religious fundamentalism and immigration difficulties, especially the ‘no recourse to public funds’ would have been drastically cut back .
The suicide rates of Asian women for example, are already three times the national average and homicides - where abusive men and families kill their wives, daughters or daughters-in-law - are also high within some black and minority communities. In all likelihood, any reduction in services would have seen a rise in suicide and homicide rates amongst black and minority women.
Had Ealing Council been successful, the disparate impact on black women would have been devastating. It would have meant that abused black and minority women, who already face considerable racism, discrimination and cultural pressures would no longer have access to a specialist service.
Southall Black Sisters’ Victory against Ealing Council
‘There is no dichotomy between funding specialist services and cohesion; equality is necessary for cohesion to be achieved.’ Lord Justice Moses
On 18 July at the High Court, in a dramatic turn of events, Ealing Council withdrew their case after one and a half days of a hearing which saw their defence rapidly unravelling. From the outset, it became apparent to the presiding judge, Lord Justice Moses and to all those present in the courtroom including the packed public gallery, that Ealing Council was skating on really thin ice in attempting to justify its decision to cut funding to SBS and to commission instead one generic borough wide service on domestic violence on the grounds of ‘equality’ and ‘cohesion’.
Amongst other things, Ealing Council was charged with the failure to:
Have proper regard to the race equality legislation and other equalities duties or its own policies when it made its decision to end funding to SBS. It failed to carry out a full and proper equality impact assessment and when it did, it was only to justify its decision;
Interpret correctly the race equality legislation by deciding that our very name and constitution (to meet the needs of Asian and African-Caribbean women) was in breach of the Race Relations Act because it ‘excluded’ white women;
Interpret correctly the cohesion agenda by assuming that it was contrary to the race equality legislation.
As the two days wore on, Ealing Council found it difficult to maintain its defence in the light of extensive evidence which showed that it had committed a series of fundamental errors and was in fact close to being regarded as having conducted the matter in ‘bad faith’ – a very serious allegation. The judge was disturbed by the way in which the Council had behaved and was demanding that it account for aspects of its actions which he found ‘blood curdling’. The Council had misinterpreted statistics which showed that black and minority women have rates of reporting domestic violence in Ealing that are disproportionate to their size of population and a crucial letter from the author of a report on gaps in domestic violence services in Ealing was not taken into account by the Council when deciding to provide a generic service, leading her to make a formal complaint.
The Council eventually decided to withdraw its case thereby denying SBS the opportunity of having a full judgement setting out the facts of the case and the litany of failures on the part of the Council – which would have been devastating for the Council and in particular for its leader. But we were able to secure a shorter judgement (pending) – which will take the form of guidance to Ealing and hopefully to all other local authorities so that in future they comply properly with the racial and other equalities legislation. Essentially the principles that will be reiterated are:
Local authorities must have proper regard to the Race Relations Act which also means undertaking proper equality impact assessments at the formative stage of the decision making process;
Cohesion does not mean disregarding the need for equality. Local authorities cannot hide behind cohesion arguments to cut specialist service provision;
Positive action is an essential part of the duty to promote racial equality. Special services run for and by BME groups (whatever their name) are not contrary to the Race Relations Act.
This result of all this is that Ealing Council must now go back to the drawing board and although the outcome could be the same again, hopefully, our victory will make it more difficult for it to ignore the guidance and therefore SBS. The Council has agreed to continue to fund SBS at the previous level until it completes the process of commissioning based on any new decision on domestic violence services.
Ealing Council also agreed to pay the costs of our legal representation and unusually the costs of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which intervened in the case as an interested third party. The total costs are likely to amount to about £100,000 – the amount that the Council previously gave SBS on an annual basis!
Victory for the entire voluntary sector
This case has raised important questions about the meaning of equality and cohesion and reminded us of the need to maintain solidarity between white and black women in the face of ‘divide and rule’ tactics. We hope that our victory will encourage other grassroots groups to fight back. We believe this case has set a precedent and that the guidance that will be available should enable all specialist groups to fight for the right to exist as autonomous groups.
When we began the process of challenging Ealing Council exactly one year ago, we were not sure where our journey would lead us. We received tremendous support from our users and many, many other individuals and organisations along the way. It is impossible to list everyone who supported us but we really would not have come this far without such encouragement and support. Above all, the support that we received reminded us of our responsibility in building a civil society based on the principles of justice, equality and humanity.
We thank you all for making this victory possible.
Southall Black Sisters – Our tradition: Struggle Not Submission.
Letter to Gordon Brown
At Prime Minister's Question Time, Gordon Brown referred to pay in the Civil Service and related areas, including his desire to see solutions to disputes. PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka has written to the PM setting out the issues and clarifying certain matters raised by the PM in his statement:
I am writing to clarify matters relating to your response to a question by Alistair Carmichael MP at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday on the need for fair pay for our members in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
You spoke of the need to get together to reach solutions to the disputes which are unfortunately occurring across the Civil Service and NDPBs, and indeed the wider public sector. I agree with that but, as PCS has repeatedly made clear, such discussions will only be fruitful if the rigid cap on pay settlements that your Government has imposed is removed.
Our members do not take industrial action lightly. It is a very difficult decision for low paid public servants to take. PCS members across the Civil Service and related bodies have been driven to take action because their management cannot breach the centralised pay cap and staff are expected to accept below inflation pay offers at a time of rapidly increasing prices. Indeed, disputes are breaking out across the public sector for the same reason.
In the civil service there is double discrimination. First, like the rest of the public sector we suffer from the public sector pay cap but, secondly, and uniquely to Civil Servants, within the pay cap there is less money available for basic cost of living pay increases as the cost of incremental pay progression has to be funded from within the pay award. For the rest of the public sector, the recorded pay award is only the cost of the basic pay increase, and the cost of incremental pay progression is not costed from within any pay cap.
Staff in the MCA are dedicated to the provision of a vital emergency service. Yet coastguard watch assistants, who actively participate in search planning and other duties in response to 999 calls, only earn the equivalent of the national minimum wage. Moreover, because of the government's pay cap, management cannot implement the results of a comparability study which recommended parity of pay with other emergency services.
You also spoke of long-term pay agreements. You mentioned both the DWP and HMRC as having three year agreements on pay. This is not true in both cases.
There is no settlement in the DWP. Our members in the DWP had imposed on them a three year pay package that can neither be described as an increase (this year 40% of them receive no increase on their pay scales) nor an agreement. Our members rejected the average increase of 1% per year imposed by departmental management. This remains the case, and we are still pursuing an increase which gives members at least the rate of inflation consolidated on their pay scales. The dispute in the DWP, as elsewhere across the Civil Service and related bodies, continues.
Meanwhile, the last three year agreement in HMRC came to an end on 31 May 2008. We understand that the parameters set by management for an offer this year will mean basic pay increases of no more than 2.4% for the vast majority of staff. With RPI increasing at 4.6% per annum, this is completely unacceptable.
Our members in these three areas are suffering cuts in their living standards because of your government's policy. On 15`'' July, I and colleagues from the Council of Civil Service Unions met Yvette Cooper to press her on the need for a settlement on pay which was fair to all of our members. I hope she is able to come back to us with solutions which address the erosion of pay by inflation, and the unfairness of the pay system in the Civil Service, so that we can avoid further industrial action right across our public sector membership.
I am writing to clarify matters relating to your response to a question by Alistair Carmichael MP at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday on the need for fair pay for our members in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
You spoke of the need to get together to reach solutions to the disputes which are unfortunately occurring across the Civil Service and NDPBs, and indeed the wider public sector. I agree with that but, as PCS has repeatedly made clear, such discussions will only be fruitful if the rigid cap on pay settlements that your Government has imposed is removed.
Our members do not take industrial action lightly. It is a very difficult decision for low paid public servants to take. PCS members across the Civil Service and related bodies have been driven to take action because their management cannot breach the centralised pay cap and staff are expected to accept below inflation pay offers at a time of rapidly increasing prices. Indeed, disputes are breaking out across the public sector for the same reason.
In the civil service there is double discrimination. First, like the rest of the public sector we suffer from the public sector pay cap but, secondly, and uniquely to Civil Servants, within the pay cap there is less money available for basic cost of living pay increases as the cost of incremental pay progression has to be funded from within the pay award. For the rest of the public sector, the recorded pay award is only the cost of the basic pay increase, and the cost of incremental pay progression is not costed from within any pay cap.
Staff in the MCA are dedicated to the provision of a vital emergency service. Yet coastguard watch assistants, who actively participate in search planning and other duties in response to 999 calls, only earn the equivalent of the national minimum wage. Moreover, because of the government's pay cap, management cannot implement the results of a comparability study which recommended parity of pay with other emergency services.
You also spoke of long-term pay agreements. You mentioned both the DWP and HMRC as having three year agreements on pay. This is not true in both cases.
There is no settlement in the DWP. Our members in the DWP had imposed on them a three year pay package that can neither be described as an increase (this year 40% of them receive no increase on their pay scales) nor an agreement. Our members rejected the average increase of 1% per year imposed by departmental management. This remains the case, and we are still pursuing an increase which gives members at least the rate of inflation consolidated on their pay scales. The dispute in the DWP, as elsewhere across the Civil Service and related bodies, continues.
Meanwhile, the last three year agreement in HMRC came to an end on 31 May 2008. We understand that the parameters set by management for an offer this year will mean basic pay increases of no more than 2.4% for the vast majority of staff. With RPI increasing at 4.6% per annum, this is completely unacceptable.
Our members in these three areas are suffering cuts in their living standards because of your government's policy. On 15`'' July, I and colleagues from the Council of Civil Service Unions met Yvette Cooper to press her on the need for a settlement on pay which was fair to all of our members. I hope she is able to come back to us with solutions which address the erosion of pay by inflation, and the unfairness of the pay system in the Civil Service, so that we can avoid further industrial action right across our public sector membership.
Liverpool Fringe Festival 2008 - Supported by TUC
August 2008 will see the beginning of a new annual Festival for Liverpool, providing the city with a platform for its amazingly diverse range of talent and creativity. We will see pubs, clubs and Community Centres, as well as more established and less orthodox venues, open their doors to our performers, dancers, musicians and comedians allowing the city to show off its true creative character, not only in the city centre, but also in the suburbs and outer reaches. Liverpool, with its own brand of unique character and culture can benefit in the same way that both Edinburgh and Dublin have over the last 20 years.We intend to make use of public spaces such as streets, boulevards and parks. With our partners we will encourage, mentor and support the involvement of not only businesses but also their employees. We will provide assistance if they want to try something new, even if they have never organised an event before. We will train local volunteers to do this, people who know their own neighbourhoods and their own communities.
Most importantly, to enable the development of the creative sector in Liverpool, providing a significant economic driver for other commercial and retail sectors.
Training, education and qualification pathways will be constructed through schools, higher education institutions and universities enabling people to grow using abilities they had not been previously aware of.
The potential for innovation and achievement is in your hands.
The Fringe Festival has already been kindly supported by the TUC and now we are asking union members to support us on an individual level. To create events we need venues, of any and every type and performers, of almost every description and style. Once we have the registration forms from both we can help set up the events and promote them to the audiences.
Please contact the Fringe Festival at liverpoolfringefestival@yahoo.com or call us on 0752 829 5012.
17.7.08
HSE Construction Skin at Work Website Launched
Significant numbers of workers suffer from work-related skin disorders like dermatitis and skin cancer.The HSE has relaunched it's 'Skin at Work' website provides essential information on how to prevent skin disorders.
To improve information, navigation and other features on the site, the HSE has changed the design and content of the pages.
There is practical advice for employers and employees on what skin diseases are what causes them and how to prevent them. For health and safety professionals, there is technical information and links to research and training tools.
New features include:
- Case studies - how businesses overcame skin problems in their workplace.
- What the victims of skin disease have to say.
- Free leaflets, toolbox talks and posters to download.
- Image library, skin disease facts & figures, 'what's new' section and more.
The site can be found here.
The DWP is NOT for Sale
DWP Minister James Purnell increased the threat to our jobs and services in a recent speech on “welfare reform” a code for cuts and privatisation.Purnell’s Green Paper proposes that all DWP work should be open to bids by private profiteers.
PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka debated Government plans to open up the DWP to privatisation with Stephen Timms Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform at a conference in Cardiff organised by PCS. He made clear that civil servants in Jobcentre Plus have the best track record of delivering effective employment services and getting people into jobs, while privatisation leads to a worse service and worse jobs.
Fresh Talks focus on PDS, Flexi and Attendance Policies
Staff everywhere are really angry as the DWP threaten flexi, the most popular staff policy, with schemes like “How We Do Business”, and attempt to impose unfair PDS and Attendance policies. That’s why the GEC pressed for the fresh pay talks to also focus on these key issues.The DWP has agreed:
- A fundamental review of PDS with full PCS involvement with the intention of seeking a new, agreed appraisal system by 2009/10.
- Talks on a commitment to family friendly flexible working policies.
- Removal of the “must give a warning policy”.
The GEC will use these talks to seek further improvements on these and other critical issues for our members.
We Won't Allow Our Reps to be Victimised.
The GEC is closely monitoring and giving full support to the cases of several union reps facing disciplinary action for allegations related to their union work. Eddie Fleming, the Chair of the CSA Hastings union branch, has been dismissed on charges relating to his union duties. Eddie was represented by PCS solicitors at a 7 day tribunal recently. The fresh pay talks will also cover measures to improve relations between PCS and management. PCS wants good industrial relations and will not allow our reps to be attacked.
Send messages of support to Eddie here.
Pay Campaign Progress
The action by PCS members has begun to pay off. Make sure you read Pay Bulletin 24 and 25. They gives details of the extra money won by our campaign that will be paid in July to members on their max and the fresh talks on pay, flexi, PDS, job security, attendance management, and industrial relations. Keep up to date by clicking on http://www.pcs.org.uk/dwp every Friday for the latest news on pay.
The Dispute Goes On
This does not mean our DWP pay campaign is over. Despite this extra money the DWP pay offer is still well below our claim for a pay increase in line with inflation. The national union is in talks with the treasury over the national pay dispute. If they do not respond positively to our demands, the union’s NEC has agreed unanimously that a national industrial action ballot will be held in mid-September. We must all continue to stick together and fight for fair pay
The Dispute Goes On
This does not mean our DWP pay campaign is over. Despite this extra money the DWP pay offer is still well below our claim for a pay increase in line with inflation. The national union is in talks with the treasury over the national pay dispute. If they do not respond positively to our demands, the union’s NEC has agreed unanimously that a national industrial action ballot will be held in mid-September. We must all continue to stick together and fight for fair pay
Lytham/Peel Park Shuttle Bus Review
The purpose of this post is to inform members of the discussions with Senior Management to review the usage and running of the shuttle bus from Lytham to Peel Park. This ongoing review with the employer was agreed as part of the negotiations surrounding the DWP Lytham Moorland Road Site closure.
The first review meeting took place on Wednesday 16th July 2008. The meeting discussed the number of people on site and the usage of the bus and the running times (we asked for a tweak in the running times in order that the 15:00 from Peel could be changed to 15:05 to accommodate the members in the CSA who use the bus and have a FWH core time of 3 Pm, and the employer agreed to look at this). We are pleased to say that the bus is going to continue to run and the next review is in December 2008.
We also enquired about the potential of additional (or an additional) pick up points for the service. We had discussed this previously and the employer indicated that there had not been any recent demand raised for this and it was not something that they were looking at.
The potential of additional services in terms of extending existing bus routes was raised and the employer agreed to take this forward with the relevant people.
The meeting also addressed the issue of access from the bus stop at Peel Park to the site for staff in wheelchairs and also other points in the Equal Opportunities arena including excess fares.
The meeting concluded on the topic of compensation payments under Work Force Planning Bulletin 117 and some technical theoretical questions including the impact of “casual” lifts (which was considered to be not an issue). If you want any details on this then please contact the Branch Office.
If you have not yet joined PCS then please consider doing so. There is a membership form available from the link on the top right-hand side of this page.
The first review meeting took place on Wednesday 16th July 2008. The meeting discussed the number of people on site and the usage of the bus and the running times (we asked for a tweak in the running times in order that the 15:00 from Peel could be changed to 15:05 to accommodate the members in the CSA who use the bus and have a FWH core time of 3 Pm, and the employer agreed to look at this). We are pleased to say that the bus is going to continue to run and the next review is in December 2008.
We also enquired about the potential of additional (or an additional) pick up points for the service. We had discussed this previously and the employer indicated that there had not been any recent demand raised for this and it was not something that they were looking at.
The potential of additional services in terms of extending existing bus routes was raised and the employer agreed to take this forward with the relevant people.
The meeting also addressed the issue of access from the bus stop at Peel Park to the site for staff in wheelchairs and also other points in the Equal Opportunities arena including excess fares.
The meeting concluded on the topic of compensation payments under Work Force Planning Bulletin 117 and some technical theoretical questions including the impact of “casual” lifts (which was considered to be not an issue). If you want any details on this then please contact the Branch Office.
If you have not yet joined PCS then please consider doing so. There is a membership form available from the link on the top right-hand side of this page.
14.7.08
DCPU - Turrets Working - Custom and Practise
Members have brought to the Branch’s attention a document from the employer entitled DCPU OPS Turret Guidance and questioned whether or not this constitutes an agreement, or if it doesn’t does it mean that by Custom and Practise their contractual conditions of service have been changed/ established.Page 9 of the document states ”telset duties can vary – maximum is 3 ½ hours – minimum is ½ hour”.
Firstly it is not an agreement in terms of a formal agreement with PCS.
That said it may have status in contract law. Courts normally decide such matters, however the employer normally has its own take on what is and isn’t legal. Often they are wrong.
As far as Custom and Practise is concerned for the employer to say that it wasn’t then they would need to challenge it under the following headings:
- Reasonable
- Notorious
- Certain
As far as reasonable is concerned this is the employer’s own guide so it would be difficult for them to say that they are not reasonable!
Notorious, it was a well publicised document and
Certain. It’s in black and white. There is nothing more certain than that.
If you are requested to do more than a shift on the Turrets of 3 and a half hours then please bring this to the attention of the employer and only do so working under duress and after submitting a grievance (and potentially ask for an Individual Stress Risk Assessment)
If you have read this circular and are not a member; then please complete an application form, the link to one can be found on the right hand side of this page.
10.7.08
LGBT Seminar 2008
The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group:The DWP Group of PCS have organised an LGBT seminar on Saturday 20th and Sunday 21st September 2008 at PCS HQ Leeds. All LGBT members who work in the DWP are eligible to attend.
The theme of the seminar is “Healthy Living for LGBT in DWP” and sessions will include:
Managing Attendance – impact on LGBT workers
Health advice
Organising
Workshops
Aims
The seminar provides an opportunity for discussion and debate amongst LGBT members. Members are encouraged to become more involved in PCS and the views of the seminar help to shape DWP Group Policy.
Applications
Applications forms to take part in the seminar are available from the Branch office.
The cost of Travel and Accommodation will be met by PCS.
Applications from LGBT members who are black minority ethnic, disabled or women are particularly welcome.
For further information ring: Yvonne Washbourne on 0121 766 4396.
DWP Pay Update
The Branch has issued a circular detailing the latest information on the pay taks and update.The circular can be found here in the MS Word format.
Information issued by PCS DWP Group can be found here.
7.7.08
1,000 fewer Civil Servants on the Fylde
The following is an article by Shelagh Parkinson of Blackpool Gazette:
The number of Civil Service jobs on the Fylde has dropped by more than 1,000 in less than four years.
Figures released today show there were 5,826 people working in the Civil Service in five sectors in December 2004, but by the end of April this year that figure had dropped to 4,784.Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anne McGuire revealed the totals in response question from Fylde MP Michael Jack MP.
The biggest number of people, 2,703, work for the Disability and Carers Service at Warbreck House, but others are employed in the Child Support Agency (367), Corporate and Shared Services (876), Jobcentre Plus (735) and the Pensions Service (103).
Mr Jack said he was concerned at the reduction in numbers and called on the Government to bring more Civil Service jobs to the Fylde coast.
He said: "The concern is that at a time when everyone is trying to regenerate Blackpool, about 1,000 jobs have gone. "It is very sad to see this information at a time when the Government has effectively pulled the plug on the supercasino.
"We have a haemorrhaging of jobs and I have a horrible feeling it's set to get worse.In 2004 the Lyons Review recommended that there was scope for public sector jobs to be relocated from London and the South East to other parts of the country. There are plans to relocate the Health and Safety Executive to Bootle, but the Fylde has not benefited from any large scale relocations.
Blackpool North and Fleetwood MP Joan Humble said she agreed that the Government could do more to bring jobs to the resort.
She said: "I have strongly argued for exactly that. "We have well trained, well qualified and committed people working in the Civil Service on the Fylde coast."
"I think all the Fylde coast MPs should work together to make sure when there is relocation of jobs, that the Fylde coast benefits."
In April the last workers left the Moorland Road site in St Annes, which in its heyday employed 2,500 Department for Work and Pensions staff, while Mexford House in North Shore is due to close in December with the loss of 110 jobs.
Mental Health Information
Shift is an initiative to tackle stigma and discrimination surrounding mental health issues in England. Their aim is to create a society where people who experience mental health problems enjoy the same rights as other people.Towards this goal, they work with groups and organisations, drawing on expertise in public health and mental health promotion, communications, disability rights, service redesign, research and evaluation. Shift builds on the mind out for mental health campaign, which ran from 2001 to April 2004.
Their website can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)