HARD COPY

Issue 33

The following details have been supplied by the PCS HQ

Union campaigns against HR job cuts PCS is planning a strategy on how to handle changes to the way human resources policies are decided and delivered across the civil service and pressing for a reversal of plans for huge cuts in HR staffing. The civil service is developing a new way of deciding and delivering HR policy and services, known as Next Generation HR (NGHR). It aims to join up some previously delegated civil service HR functions into corporate expert service centres at a limited number of locations. Departmental HR will retain a “business partner function” responsible for specific aspects of HR commissioning and delivery. These will include health and safety and relations with departmental trade unions. The NGHR programme will have a major impact on members across the civil service. The pilot was set up under the Brown government, with the aim of providing better and simpler HR, but under the coalition cost saving has now become a more important element and the pace of the changes has accelerated. Thousands of HR staff and management jobs are under threat across departments, based on proposals to change the ratio of HR staff to employees from about 1:50 to 1:100. A reduction

in the level and quality of service from HR staff will put more pressure on PCS members and considerably change learning delivery.

Services shared across departments Priority areas are HR policy, civil service learning and resourcing, including recruitment, redeployment, and a new e-recruitment system. The aim is to get the shared expert services centres based in nominated departments in place by April 2011. Locations for these centres were announced on 6 January. The process for recruitment, staff numbers and grades are being discussed centrally with trade unions and more information will follow shortly. Other expert service areas will be developed at different stages between 2011 and 2013. Civil service unions were assured in November that the NGHR programme is not seeking to change terms and conditions in the immediate future. The need for a process to identify and protect existing contractual terms and conditions when policy changes are proposed has been recognised and PCS will seek to agree a policy of ‘no detriment’.

The PCS response NGHR is designed to achieve job cuts in HR. Jobs are at risk across all departments. HR Policy and learning and development roles will be the first to be redeployed. The union’s national executive has identified the cuts arising from NGHR as part of the anti-cuts campaign. Senior officers are co-ordinating PCS’s response and negotiating teams. Certain aspects of the programme, particularly joining up HR provision and improving consistency and coherence across the civil service, are in line with PCS policy. However, serious concerns have been raised about:

Attempting such a complex project and cutting departmental HR provision when structural change and job cuts across the civil service are already resulting in extra pressure

The impact on jobs and careers of members working in HR and learning and development

The likely reduction in HR support and learning opportunities for civil servants.

PCS HQ is monitoring developments on NGHR and has arranged briefings and consultations with groups and bargaining unit negotiators.

Editorial Happy Easter all. Hope you have all been finding time to enjoy this great weather recently. Let’s hope there’s plenty more over the next week or so as I am sure there are many of you making the most of the bank holiday’s etc to maximise some annual leave. I’m also sure a few of you will be watching the Royal Wedding, not something I am bothered about myself, I’ll catch the highlights later in the week – “the best bits” so to speak. Have a good Easter whatever you are doing and don’t forget to enter our (rather easy) competitions. It’s always nice to win something and you can’t do that if you don’t enter.

Lee

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group: Major Disruption to Travel – DWP Policy New DWP Policy The new DWP Major Disruption to Travel Policy was published on 2 March 2011. This policy is introduced following consultation but not agreement with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS). When your ability to travel to your usual place of work is affected by major disruption this policy provides guidance on what employees and managers need to do. Major disruption could be caused by severe weather, such as heavy snow or flooding, or strikes on public transport for example and can affect different people in different ways, in different locations at different times. The policy expects a manager to consider local conditions, personal circumstances and personal health and safety when considering how an employee can continue to work during major disruption. (Policy paragraph 14) DWP expects everyone to attend work but alternative ways of working may be an option for some employees who are unable to travel to work safely. The Policy expects a manager to discuss practical solutions for how an employee can continue to work when circumstances prevent that person from travelling to their usual place of work. Where employees are unable to attend work, or carry out work after considering all practical options, there is provision for credits or special leave. Options for managing major disruption The following list of options is given, under Policy paragraph 15, as suggestions only. Some options will not be available to all employees because of their individual circumstances. The list is not exhaustive.

Seek information from local public transport information lines, websites or local TV and radio for up to date travel information to check if the journey is possible and for service alterations

Check local weather forecasts for improvements during the day to understand how the journey to and from work may be affected

Use an alternative form of transport than that usually used for travel to work

Car-share or lifts from colleagues Consider the likelihood that the situation will improve and delay

the journey to work Walk to work or to the nearest public transport stop if less than

one hour’s walking distance, where it is safe and practical to do so.

Is there any useful work that can be done at home If disruption is expected to last for several days discuss options

with your manager for the day after. Are there options that could be considered that were not possible today because of short notice?

Employees can request to use their own time i.e. flexi leave or annual leave, subject to business need

Is special leave appropriate for the situation and the employee’s individual circumstances?

Working from an alternative office nearer to home is an option but is dependent on a number of factors and must be approved by the employee’s manager. Before selecting this option the guidance on working from an alternative office must be considered.

Annual Leave Notice The Policy does not require employees to take annual leave. The Working Time Regulations (Regulation 15) require notice to be given to the individual worker where an employer wants to require a worker to take annual leave. The employer is required to give a notice period of at least twice as long as the leave period. This means that the employer would have to give 2 days notice of a requirement to take 1 days leave and 5 days notice of a requirement to take 2.5 days leave. This obviously cannot be done as part of any lawful response to an emergency that arises on the day itself.

Use Discretion for Flexi Credits DWP Flexible Working Hours Procedure Paragraph 3 expects that managers must use discretion about requests for FWH credits for reasons such as serious disruption to public transport and extreme weather conditions. Managers are expected to refer to the Major Disruption to Travel policy for further guidance. Frequently asked questions are addressed in this guidance which includes clarification that: You can only be credited for any shortfall in your contracted working day Credits are determined on the basis of your contractual hours of attendance as recorded on your working pattern agreement. You cannot therefore receive flexi credits which take you over standard contracted hours for that day. Paragraphs 33 to 36 of the Major Disruption to Travel Policy provide for flexi credits to be given on the basis that an employee is unable to attend work, or carry out work after considering all practical options. Caring Arrangements and Special Leave Whilst employees may be able to travel to their usual place of work themselves, they may be prevented from doing so due to a breakdown in their caring arrangements. For example, schools and care centres may suddenly close. In these circumstances employees should make reasonable efforts to make alternative arrangements. Where an employee has been notified about an unexpected breakdown in their caring arrangements they should refer to the Special Leave Policy. (Travel Policy Paragraphs 16 and17) DWP Standards of Behaviour Standards of Behaviour Paragraph 46 has been updated to state: In the case of travel disruptions or bad weather, you are expected to consider alternative transport options including walking if less than one hour’s walking distance, or secondly, to consider working from an office location closer to home, or from home if practicable. Managers will consider any potential health and safety risks and take account of, and make adjustments for, factors such as any disabilities, the nature of the disruption, the individual’s personal circumstances and business continuity arrangements. The Major Disruption to Travel policy provides further guidance on attendance during periods of disruption.

Grant’s QuickEaster Quiz

Grant here with a series of Easter Quizlets. Rather than one quiz I bring you six of the best, for Easter. So every time you see me popping up in this Easter Special of the Hard Copy you know it’s fun time. There are always jolly japes galore when I am around. The winner of each of the quizzes will receive an Easter Egg. Here goes my first question: I think that my name, Grant is very distinguished. However one of the other Branch Officers has Grant as their middle name. But which one is it? a) Martin Jones b) Mick Daniels c) Duncan Griffiths d) Jon Colgan e) Gloria Hodgkinson Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I have a middle name but it’s not Grant, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than Friday 20th of May 2011. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding the Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz. Grant

UK asbestos law not up to Euro standard The UK version of a European Union-wide law on asbestos safety is illegally lax and must be amended, the government has been told. The TUC, which had warned against the dilution of essential safety measures, said the European Commission (EC) ruling nails the myth the UK 'gold-plates' Euro laws. In discussions at the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) - now the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) board - prior to the introduction of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, the unacceptably weak interpretation was pushed through in a vote. This exceedingly rare measure was necessary because union representatives refused to accept the downgrading of essential clauses in the original European Directive that formed the basis of the law. This week's 'reasoned opinion' from the EC, in response to a complaint about inadequacies in the UK law, gives the government two months to amend the law or face possible action at the EU's Court of Justice. It says the UK misinterpreted requirements on 'sporadic and low intensity exposure to asbestos' to justify the exclusion of considerable amounts of asbestos work from asbestos licensing, health assessments and exposure recording requirements. The EC announcement, warning of court action if the government fails to act, notes: 'The UK legislation currently focuses on the measurement of exposure to asbestos and not enough on the how the material will be affected by the work itself, while the directive deals with both exposure and the material.' TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said 'this is another nail in the coffin of the myth that the HSE has been 'gold-plating' regulation. European regulations are there to protect workers and governments should see them as being minimum standards rather than trying to weasel out of their commitments.'

Fitness Tests The government's continued use of a flawed fitness for work disability assessment system is expending resources on victimising the sick when it should be concentrating its efforts on creating more jobs, the TUC has said. Commenting on findings from the government's incapacity benefit reassessment programme published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'While we welcome the government's commitment to implement the Harrington Review to improve the operation of work capability assessments, these trials were carried out under the old system where 40 per cent of appeals were upheld, due to problems the government acknowledges still exist.' He added: 'Even among those who do not appeal, many of the people judged as 'fit for work' in these trials are disabled, and will face additional barriers moving into the jobs market - particularly as they are likely to have spent a long period out of work and live in areas where unemployment is high. With more than five unemployed people now chasing every job vacancy, whether or not people get back into work will depend upon the economy starting to grow.' The union leader concluded: 'Instead of blaming sick and disabled people for being out of work the government needs to stop cutting back on support for unemployed people and start focusing on creating jobs.' Employment minister Chris Grayling said initial reassessments of those on invalidity benefit in Aberdeen and Burnley found over a quarter were fit for work (29.6 per cent). However, the government also admits changes recommended by Professor Harrington are yet to be implemented, so its findings are based on the use of a system the government itself accepts is seriously flawed.

More work unpaid overtime than ever before A record 5.26 million people worked unpaid overtime last year - the highest number since records began in 1992, a TUC analysis of official figures has revealed. The analysis, published on 25 February to mark Work Your Proper Hour Day (WYPHD), shows over one in five workers (21 per cent) regularly worked unpaid overtime last year, an increase of 0.7 per cent since 2009 and the highest proportion since 1997. WYPHD is the day when the average person who does unpaid overtime would start to get paid if they did all their unpaid overtime at the start of the year. Last year the 5.26 million people across the UK clocked up an average seven hours 12 minutes unpaid overtime a week, worth £5,485 per person and a record £28.9 billion to the economy. Public sector workers are the most likely to do unpaid overtime, with over one in four (26.3 per cent) regularly putting in more than seven hours of unpaid overtime a week, compared to around one in six workers in the private sector (18.9 per cent). TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'With tough economic conditions making employers reluctant to recruit, existing staff are picking up much of the increasing work load through unpaid hours.' He added 'there is a serious side to excessive overtime, irrespective of whether staff get paid for it. Bosses should always be on the lookout for a damaging long hours culture in their workplace and take steps to protect their workforce.' Writing in The Guardian, political blogger Richard Seymour commented: 'The irony is that while working longer hours than a generation ago, and working more unpaid labour, we are getting less as a share of national income for our trouble. As a share of GDP, wages have fallen from a high of 64 per cent in 1974 to approximately 54 per cent in 2010. This is despite the fact that we have become more productive.'

Work pressures hurt families

Nearly one in three people in the UK have been in a relationship that has suffered because of work pressures, according to a new poll. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) questioned 2,000 people to examine how a poor work-life balance can damage relationships. Of the 29 per cent who said they had been in a relationship adversely affected by a poor work-life balance, the two main problems identified were long working hours and high workloads. IOSH policy director Dr Luise Vassie said: 'It seems that too many of us are letting work take hold of our lives - and our home life is often suffering as a result.' She added: 'Of course, people are working harder than ever, but as our results show, too many are seeing their relationships outside of work suffer as a consequence. And this isn't solely a problem for the employee. An unhappy worker is often an unproductive one.' Overall, some 60 per cent of people surveyed said that their work-life balance was either very poor, poor or could be better. Workplace stress expert Professor Cary Cooper commented: 'IOSH's poll ties in with the fact that the UK has the longest working hours in Europe.' He laid the blame squarely with bad behaviour by firms. 'One of the main issues that lead to a poor work-life balance is bad management,' he said. 'There are managers out there who create a culture where people feel they cannot leave - they have to come early or stay late. Employers need to be open to flexible working hours to allow home-life and work-life to have a healthy balance.' He said employees should avoid long hours.

The following details have been supplied by the PCS HQ:

Robin Hood can save public services and protect the world’s poor As the devastating cuts announced in the comprehensive spending review begin to bite, with public services taking a serious hit and spiralling job losses, it is clear the wrong people are being punished. In the UK, and all around the world, tens of millions of people are suffering from a global crisis they did not cause, and rich bankers, who certainly did, are not paying their fair share. A Robin Hood tax could save our public services and protect the poorest people across the globe from the destructive effects of the global financial crisis. In the UK, with the words, ‘we are all in it together’ ringing in our ears, cuts are being announced with alarming zeal and regularity. The TUC’s ‘cuts watch’ lists more than 300 cuts that will have far-reaching effects on families, communities and services. The government is cutting services and benefits while imposing cuts that will mean unemployment will soar. Corporation tax is being slashed and multinationals let off their tax bills while student fees are trebled and VAT rises. We are told we are all sharing the pain, but these cuts will hit the poorest and most vulnerable in society hardest. Wave of austerity Globally, the poorest people have also been hit hard. A wave of austerity measures has swept Europe, threatening higher unemployment and economic instability and in developing countries more people are sinking into abject poverty because of rising unemployment and food prices. PCS is highlighting the injustice and inconsistency in the government’s approach, arguing for a new economic strategy for the UK based on public investment, job creation, and tax justice. A Robin Hood Tax of 0.005–0.05% on each of the millions of daily financial transactions would provide a new source of finance. This would be used to tackle the effects of the global economic crisis and pay for the recovery, protecting our public services and the most vulnerable.

The campaign, supported by more than 110 domestic, international, faith-led and environmental organisations, and 230,000 people in the UK, is calling for greater taxation of the UK’s financial sector to raise a further £20 billion through an expanded bank levy, financial transaction tax or financial activities tax. Growing campaign Since the campaign was launched international momentum has grown. Campaign group Europeans for Financial Reform and the trade union movement have been pressuring EU governments. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece and Spain are all supporting the introduction of a European financial transactions tax. It is expected this will become a central feature of the French G8 and G20 presidencies in 2011. Sadly the coalition remains unconvinced. It has announced a bank levy of £2.5bn and might go further. But the banks have had other taxes cut or held over, so this does not go far enough. The list of countries supporting a Robin Hood Tax keeps growing. At the UN Millennium Development Goal Review Summit in September 57 countries backed the call for a Robin Hood Tax and even the International Monetary Fund seems to be coming round to the idea. The support from civil society is growing rapidly. Twenty-four trade unions are signed up to support the campaign, with the TUC, Oxfam, ActionAid and Save the Children leading the coalition. A letter to the G20, calling for the introduction of a Robin Hood Tax, attracted the support of 183 organisations from 42 countries. We need to keep up the momentum and pile the pressure on politicians to accept there is an alternative to swingeing cuts and mass unemployment, starvation, floods and poverty. The Robin Hood Tax is a key part of that alternative. What you can do: Sign up from home to the campaign at

http://www.robinhoodtax.org/ or join the http://www.facebook.com/robinhoodtax for campaign updates.

Follow Robin Hood on Twitter at home

(@robinhood) and keep spreading the message with the #RHT hashtag.

Write to your MP asking for support and your

local media, linking local cuts to services with the fact there is an alternative.

The following information has been supplied by the: HSE plan to slash workplace inspections Health and Safety Executive (HSE) plans to reduce unannounced workplace inspections by a third have been condemned by unions and safety advocates. A leaked letter from HSE chief executive Geoffrey Podger, obtained by the union-backed Hazards magazine and the BBC, outlines plans to discontinue inspections in entire sectors of industry, including some where it admits 'significant risk' remains. The unannounced 'knock on the door' has traditionally formed a key aspect of the HSE's approach to enforcement, and is credited with helping to reduce workplace deaths, injuries and work-related ill-health. But the letter from HSE's Geoffrey Podger to Derek Allen, the head of Local Government Regulation, proposes reducing these 'proactive inspections' by a third. It recommends a departure from face-to-face contact in favour of web-based and other initiatives. The letter identifies just three high hazard sectors - nuclear, offshore and chemical industries - that will be ring-fenced from the proposed cuts. But the letter also outlines two categories where proactive inspections will be entirely withdrawn. In one case this is put down to the "relative cost-effectiveness" of the procedure. For another, inspections are deemed not "necessary or useful" despite HSE acknowledging the

"significant risk" posed by the industries under consideration. The proposals have prompted an angry response from unions and safety advocates. Dr Courtney Davis of Sussex University reviewed the worldwide evidence for the value of proactive inspections, and believes any reduction is likely to have a detrimental impact on worker safety. 'The most robust studies show that inspection plus enforcement are associated with a decline in injury rates of 22 per cent for the following three years,' she said. 'The evidence relating to new, soft interventions is much weaker, and almost non-existent. It doesn't appear to be the case that these alternatives are effective in improving compliance with health and safety law or injury rates.' The plans were also condemned by Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK) spokesperson Hilda Palmer who said 'Far too many people are killed under the current regime of workplace health and safety law and enforcement, which is totally inadequate to stop non-compliant employers killing workers. It is utterly horrifying that due to government budget cuts the HSE, the body that should be the workers' safety and health champion, now plans to cut proactive inspections by another third.' She warned: 'It is absolutely inevitable that more workers will be needlessly killed by employers who now have a free pass to ignore safety and health rules.' Unscrupulous firms will get away with crimes Rogue firms will be able to ignore safety rules with impunity if the official safety watchdog slashes the number of inspections, the TUC has warned. Commenting on a proposal by the cash-strapped Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to cut unannounced workplace safety inspector visits by up to a third, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'The possibility

of an unexpected visit from either an HSE or a local authority safety inspector helps keep employers on their toes; even now, workplaces can go decades without ever seeing an inspector. If government cuts to HSE funding do result in fewer safety inspections, unscrupulous employers will simply assume they can get away with taking risks with the safety and well-being of their staff, without fear of ever being prosecuted.' The union leader added: 'Health and safety inspectors do a great job preventing workers from falling ill, being injured or even killed at work, and in a recent TUC survey of union safety reps, 61 per cent of reps said the chance of a visit from an inspector had encouraged their employer to make improvements to safety. The government needs to demonstrate that it is committed to improving health and safety, and can show that it is by reversing the recent cuts to HSE and local authority funding, which are putting the safety of millions of workers across the UK at risk.' David Urpeth, head of workplace injuries at personal injury law firm Irwin Mitchell, echoed TUC's concerns. 'My team and I regularly see the misery and devastation that is caused by accidents at work which have often come about due to the negligence of employers and their failure to follow the necessary regulations. The tragedy is that in most cases the accident could and should have been avoided,' he said. 'Inspections play a vital role in flagging trends and providing an insight into the risks which companies across a number of sectors are failing to protect their workers from.' HSE unions condemn safety cutbacks

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) plans to reduce dramatically the number of workplace safety inspections have been condemned by its own workforce. HSE unions Prospect and PCS say reduced oversight will lead to an increase in injuries and occupational disease. Prospect, the union representing over 1,650 inspectors and other specialists in HSE, said proactive inspections are a key tool for increasing workplace health and safety as they bring inspectors into contact with employers who have not had a major accident. Prospect says the proposal will also 'drastically affect work on industrial diseases' as they require proactive inspection. Negotiator Mike Macdonald said: 'In areas of high industrial activity, inspectors are already so pushed by the rate of major accidents that proactive work is limited.' He added: 'Such inspections are at the cutting edge of HSE's work and saves industry and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in lost working days and medical bills. It is a false economy. If I worked in a hazardous industry, I would not take any comfort from comments by

the minister, Chris Grayling, who believes that the HSE should only intervene after a serious accident rather than spend money on the HSE, and working with employers to avoid hazardous situations in the first place.' PCS said it has seen documents which make it clear that ministers want to 'modernise' their approach to enforcement in industries they acknowledge have comparatively high rates of injury or industrial disease - including construction, agriculture, quarrying, waste and recycling, and some manufacturing. PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: 'If the government is not prepared to guarantee unannounced inspections in dangerous industries like construction, agriculture, quarrying, waste, and manufacturing they are proving that these cuts are ideological. They are putting the lives of working people at risk to satisfy their twin agenda of cutting public spending and helping employers to chase profits without responsibility.' He added: 'The only model of health and safety regulation that has worked anywhere in the world is a combination of proactive inspections and enforcement. The government must guarantee that unannounced inspections are to continue and that the HSE is going to employ enough inspectors and back-up staff to ensure that the job of protecting working people is done properly. Business lobbyist to head sickness review The government has appointed a business lobbyist who is a vocal opponent of health and safety regulation and enforcement to head a review of workplace sickness absence. Ministers says the independent review, jointly chaired by David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) and

Dame Carol Black, National Director for Health and Work, 'will explore radical new ways on how the current system can be changed to help more people stay in work and reduce costs.' The government says the aim is to 'help combat the staggering £100 billion that working age ill health costs the economy every year.' It adds the review, which is jointly sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), will include a panel of experts from business, trade unions and health representatives. Ministers are linking it explicitly to a wider review of employment law 'which is looking at measures to reduce red tape and remove the burdens on business, encourage growth and maximise flexibility for employers and employees.' BCC's David Frost commented: 'I look forward to working with Dame Carol Black to reduce the unsustainable bill on both employers and the state caused by sickness absence, and making radical recommendations to achieve this.' BCC has been criticised repeatedly for 'rigging' the evidence to present an inflated figure for the cost of health and safety protections at work. At the same time it ignores entirely the benefits that accrue to business, workers and society as a whole from the use of regulation and enforcement to reduce the toll of work-related injury and ill-health. The critics say the government is too willing to listen to and regurgitate BCC's 'bogus' arguments.’

Grant

Grant’s Quick Easter Quiz (Maze)

A maze, I love a maze. All you have to do is draw a route to take me safely to my beloved Easter Eggs - But watch out for that terrible chap Mick who pinches my Easter eggs every year. Please send your route, together with your name and details to Jacqui “I got lost even looking at the maze, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than 20th of May 2011. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group: DWP Performance Improvement Plans must be fair, reasonable and supportive Concerns about Performance DWP People Performance Procedures include detailed guidance on how concerns about poor performance should be addressed by managers including the use of Performance Improvement Plans. Under People Performance Procedures, Paragraph 6, managers are told that where they have “concerns about an employee’s performance, it is important that action is taken quickly. Performance is likely to worsen if not addressed and it is not fair to the employee, their colleagues or our customers to let the issue become a major problem before action is taken.”

Unusual Poor Performance The first consideration for the manager will be to decide whether the poor performance issue is unusual for that employee and this is a fall in their usual/Departmental standards. If this is the case it is likely to mean that something has happened which has temporarily affected the employee’s ability to perform to their usual standards. Where the issue is a consequence of circumstances outside of the control of the employee, the manager should consider a temporary, appropriate adjustment of the usual standards. The manager will need to discuss this as part of the performance discussion with the employee to identify what the issue is and what support they can give to help the employee bring their performance back to its usual level. The support will depend on employee circumstances but may include:

Advising the employee to contact the Employee Assistance Programme

A referral to the Occupational Health Service

A temporary change in duties/location.

More Frequent Discussions Managers should schedule more frequent performance discussions to monitor performance and check on progress. If, after taking this action, performance fails to return to its usual level, the manager will need

to consider further action as described under People Performance Procedures, paragraphs 6.4 to 6.6, for “Continued performance issues – informal poor performance.” Members may take advice from their PCS Rep at this stage but informal discussions do not attract the right to be accompanied.

Informal Poor Performance Procedures

Where performance remains unacceptable or does not recover after a performance lapse, the manager should schedule an additional performance discussion with the employee. The manager should make it clear that this meeting is specifically being held because of poor performance. They must state the reasons/provide evidence which supports the application of informal action.

At this meeting the manager will need to:

Discuss the current performance and outline why it is unacceptable

Identify and confirm the issues that are affecting the employee’s performance (including circumstances beyond their control)

Identify any temporary appropriate adjustments which may need to be taken into account

Identify if the poor performance is linked to the employee’s health. If so, ask the employee to consult their GP and also consider a referral to Occupational Health (with the employee’s consent)

Offer and provide any support, coaching and feedback to ensure the employee is clear what is expected of them

Discuss what steps are needed to achieve the necessary standards, and ensure the standards set are reasonable for the employee

Discuss any development and ensure the Development Plan is updated

Update objectives as necessary

Remind the employee of the Employee Assistance Programme

Consider a change of duties, where feasible and appropriate

Discuss and agree a Performance Improvement Plan and agree a plan of actions which allow reasonable time for consolidation of support provided.

The manager will also need to explain that if the employee’s performance continues to be poor, then formal Unsatisfactory Performance action may have to be taken.

However, the aim is to support employees and help them to improve their performance without having to take formal action.

The agreed actions and timescales will need documenting on the Performance Improvement Plan Both the manager and the employee should have a copy of this and should jointly monitor the employee’s performance against the agreed actions. The manager and employee will agree a short timetable of performance discussions which should cover the duration of the actions recorded on the Performance Improvement Plan.

If improvements are not made, the manager will need to decide, following discussion with the countersigning manager, whether formal Unsatisfactory Performance action is necessary.

PCS Support and Advice Members may seek advice and support from their PCS Representative when a manager raises concerns about poor performance. Members must be allowed:

a fair and reasonable opportunity for improvement under the normal People Performance process;

a further fair and reasonable opportunity for improvement under the informal poor performance procedures;

all normal, reasonable, supportive steps to improve performance, using the People Performance procedures, before formal unsatisfactory performance action is taken under the Unsatisfactory Performance Policy.

Member’s concerns under People Performance should be raised informally through discussion with the line manager. Unresolved concerns should be raised formally, in writing, using the Grievance Procedures within 15 working days of the event or decision in question.

Box B

Box C

B o x

A

Grant’s Quick Easter Quiz Mick has pinched one of my Easter eggs and has hidden it in and old wine box. Is it box A, B, or C? Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I think that Grant should be more careful with his Eggs in future, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than Friday 20th

of May 2011. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Grant

Grant’s Quick Easter Quiz

Here goes the fourth quiz and we are back to questions. On what date is Good Friday this year? Is it? a) 1st April b) 8th April c) 15th April d) 22nd April e) 29th April Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I have got very confused with all this Easter and Easter school holidays being on different weeks, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than May 20th 2011. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Grant

The Following Article was taken from Personnel Today website, the actual article can be found here: http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2011/02/03/57317/weekly-dilemma-tweeting-employees.html Weekly dilemma: Tweeting employees One of my employee has been tweeting at work from her mobile phone, complaining about her job. However, the Twitter account doesn't have her name on it. I want to discipline her - do I have any grounds do so? Yes. Next question? Actually it is not quite as obvious or simple as it appears. A number of provisos stand between you and your objective, and while these are probably surmountable, it is important that they are (and are seen to be) properly considered. First, there is a thin but important line between griping about one's job and about one's employer. An employer that disciplines all those who carp about their job from time to time will run out of both reputation and staff in very short order. In moderation, everyone has the right to express some degree of dissatisfaction with their personal position. However, as soon as the complaint becomes related to the employer, whether the company itself or its staff, that becomes much more material. Second, you have to show that the complaint is public. If it does not have your employee's name on it, can anyone link the tweet back to your company or particular individuals within it? Without that link your employee becomes just another unpunctuated malcontent spraying her angst into the ether, without any direct impact on your business at all. Even if the general public will not reasonably make the connection, however, a critical tweet can still be your employee's undoing if it is clear to her colleagues that she is the author. Their resulting ill-will and lack of trust (and the disruption to the work of the team) could easily form grounds for disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal if the tweet is particularly venomous or contains discriminatory language. Third, if the tweets are clearly and unacceptably critical of your company or its staff or customers/suppliers then the fact that they may be made out of working hours or on a personal mobile is immaterial. However, if they are made in working hours this may add another ground for disciplinary action. On the face of it, she is spending work time on non-work matters, but is it really any more than those who gossip over coffee or take a periodic cigarette break outside? Where the thrust of your disciplinary action is the time lost by the tweets rather than their contents, it is important to ensure consistency of approach. In addition, unless continued after express instructions to stop, it is hard to see that just taking a little time out to post the odd tweet during the day could warrant much more than an oral warning. Finally, bear in mind the faint possibility that the tweets are symptomatic of something genuinely serious within the workplace, a cry for help, as it were. If they refer to bullying, legal infringements or discrimination by management, for example, there may well be something going on that you do need to look at. Even if you disagree with the medium used, it is just about possible to argue that such tweets amount in the loosest sense to protected acts for victimisation or whistle-blowing purposes, and therefore that intemperate action to discipline or dismiss in response could be claimed to be victimisation. This is not an easy argument to run and temperate consideration of the question will generally entitle the employer to conclude that whatever the employee's concerns, tweeting to the world at large is not an appropriate means of voicing them. David Whincup, head of employment, London, Squire Sanders Hammonds

Key pre-conditions to disciplinary action

You will need to be reasonably sure that: the contents of the tweet relate to the employer (including its staff or key customers/suppliers); the above link is reasonably apparent either to the tweeter's colleagues and/or to the general public; the tweet is critical or derogatory in a meaningful sense, including on personal or discriminatory grounds; the disciplinary action you propose would be consistent with the employer's response in cases of non-tweeting criticism or time-wasting; and the tweet is not a plea, albeit tragically misjudged, for some help from the employer.

DWP GROUP ELECTIONS – 2011 YOUR CHANCE TO INFLUENCE YOUR PAY AND YOUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS If your ballot paper goes to your home address, please take this document home with you! The purpose of this article is to inform members that from Wednesday 20th April 2011 onwards you should receive your DWP Group Executive Committee Election ballot paper. The DWP Group Executive is an important body within PCS negotiating and campaigning on items such as:

Departmental Pay Conditions of Service, Annual Leave, etc Health and Safety matters such as screens, risk assessments across the Department.

The Branch Executive Committee and the Annual General Meetings support the following list of candidates: Group President Jane Aitchison Vice President (5): Alan Brown

Martin Cavanagh

John McInally

Laura Martin Katrine Williams Asst Secretaries (7): Paul Barton David Burke Christine Cuthbert Sam Hall Tom Penn Dave Richards Rob Williams

Organiser:

Fran Heathcote

Treasurer: Bashir Chilwan

Journal Editor: Alan Smith

The candidates mentioned, if elected, will campaign for (please see next page):

Committee (21): Dave Alston Marie McDonough Ian Bartholomew Dave Owens Alison Carass Ian Page Jason Ferraby Ian Pope Helen Flanagan Carol Revell Jimmy Gill Sarah Robinson Janice Godrich Annette Rochester Sharon Green Sian Ruddick Gavin Hartley Derek Thomson Martin Jones Steve West Adam Khalif

PAY – A return to national pay bargaining, a minimum wage in line with the European Decency Threshold and all staff to reach their maximum within 5 years. Opposition to Performance Pay. Opposition to the pay freeze. All pay awards must be equality proofed to ensure that they are not discriminatory. HEALTH AND SAFETY – Full support for members’ Health and Safety rights of work. The above candidates support the Branches in ensuring safety in a key issue- issues such as Heating and Lighting (the ability of members to have some control over their environment), ensuring the employer conducts proper Risk Assessments across a range of working environment issues and procedures, and for proper local consultation our Health and Safety issues. CONDITIONS OF SERVICE – The harmonisation of pay, grading and all conditions of service for all DWP members on the basis of the best terms from each Agency. For improved policies on Equal Opportunities and Domestic Violence, improved procedures on promotion vacancy filling and transfers and improvements to sick absence procedures. Although there is a long way still to go these candidates have already succeeded in preventing the Department’s sick absence procedures from becoming even worse and are seeking to curtail the procedure of semi automatic warnings after only 8 days absence. A degree of common sense is now expected. For the abolition of the PDS Appraisal system. STAFFING – Against casualisation and for more permanent staff. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS – A cautious approach to any Partnership initiatives from senior management. For improved industrial relations, adequate time off for PCS representatives and an insistence that PCS must remain an independent Trade Union with the explicit right to actively campaign against and fully oppose any of the employer’s proposals. In favour of fully open negotiations. STOP PRIVATISATION – A high profile campaign to oppose any further privatisation of work and for the return of work already privatised back into the public sector. WIDER ISSUES – For a better and fairer benefits system which alleviates and not perpetuates poverty. We would encourage members to vote in the forthcoming elections and we hope that you will consider voting for the above candidates. If your ballot paper goes to your home address, please take this article home with you.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact your Branch office.

The following details have been supplied by the PCS HQ

Campaign targets VAT avoidance Companies using offshore VAT loopholes are depriving the UK of hundreds of millions of pounds which could be spent on vital services. Richard Allen, founder of Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes, explains how his campaign is fighting for tax justice. I have worked in the music industry for 20 years. It is an industry I love but one that over the last 10 years has been almost completely destroyed by government incompetence. A European VAT relief called low-value consignment relief (LVCR) intended to allow non-EU goods into the EU VAT-free priced £18 or less, has been abused by sharp retailers who have been sending UK goods offshore, mainly The Channel Islands, so they can then be re-imported by mail order to gain the relief. VAT is avoided and a fairly significant trading advantage obtained. This advantage has been used to a devastating degree against UK mainland retailers. Those who have been unable to gain the same advantage and move offshore have been forced out of business. Tax abuse I thought such an insidious tax avoidance-based profit margin was immoral and after giving evidence to the all party parliamentary shops committee, I and other retailers approached the Treasury in 2006, to put an end to what was clearly an unfair abuse. After a year of meeting officials I was sure they would take action to close down this tax avoidance scam. On paper it looked a very simple problem: The European laws covering this relief clearly state it cannot be abused for tax avoidance or evasion. Even clearer is the fact that the law surrounding this relief allows member states to exclude certain goods from mail order and from certain territories if there is abuse.

CDS and DVDs from The Channel Islands could have been removed from the relief by the government when the use of LVCR via the Channel Islands started to affect UK retail. But it soon became apparent, as the whole VAT avoidance industry grew in the Channel Islands to an industrial scale, that the UK government officials were either stupid, too scared to admit a screw-up, or unwilling to do anything. Inconvenient truth Endless excuses about the cost of collecting VAT, inconvenience to consumers - according to HMRC VAT is inconvenient - costs to the post office and other nonsense waffled on in the background while the abuse continued to grow. By 2009 more than 90% of UK internet music retail was offshore with one in four CDs and one in three DVDs bought online, VAT free. As I had told the Treasury in 2006 hard product still sold and between 2005 and 2009 internet DVD sales increased by 209% and CDs by 40%. Yet while these huge increases took place offshore, back in the real world everyone was going bust with 63% of independent music retail closing during the same period. Independent retailers operated websites and were good at it but just couldn’t compete if they had to charge VAT. Millions lost in VAT avoidance VAT has been lost in hundreds of millions, money that pays for our basic services and which we cannot afford to lose. Apologists for this scam say it is good for the consumer. That is entirely misleading. It is good for anyone wanting a cheap CD but the reality is that cheap CD comes with a cost since any UK taxpayer who isn’t buying a CD is subsidising anyone who does through a loss in VAT revenue. With more products going through this avoidance arrangement more retailers are suffering what I went through. Those in government continue to ignore blatant tax avoidance, market distortion and tax abuse that has no positive outcome at all for UK retail or the taxpayer. RAVAS intends to bring HMRC and The Treasury to book over its negligent application of this VAT relief. Help end one of the greatest tax injustices in the UK in living memory at vwww.vatloophole.co.uk

Grant’s Quick Easter Quiz Here goes the fifth quiz and we are still on questions or should I say Stilton on questions. I love cheese, but don’t we all? At which Hill in Gloucestershire was the annual cheese rolling competition. Was it? a) Fletcher’s b) Damon’s c) Smith’s d) Taylor’s e) Cooper’s Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I don’t think that you would see me running down hill chasing after a cheese, I get mine from the Supermarket, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later Than Friday 20th of May 2011. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Grant

Concern as headsets deafen workers

Over 1,500 workers who believe their hearing has been damaged by the use of high pitched noise fed through workplace headsets are taking action against their employers. Tony Rupa, head of legal services at the communication workers' union CWU, the union backing compensation cases on behalf of affected workers, said: 'People traditionally associate hearing damage with heavy manufacturing and music industries, but there are many people who work in the communications sector who are exposed to loud, continuous and high pitched noises.' He added: 'This noise can cause lasting damage and it's essential that we take steps to cut out the noise at source. If this can't be done then workers need to be given equipment to protect their ears.' Isobel Lovett, an industrial illness specialist at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, is representing around 130 clients who suffered hearing damage working at British Telecom. These include both current and former BT employees who believe their hearing was damaged by 'green set' and 'yellow set' oscillators - devices which transmit a constant high pitched sound through a headset, allowing the user to listen for changes in tone to track cable faults. BT has already admitted that these oscillators have caused hearing loss and tinnitus to a large number of users, and has now replaced them with an adapted model. But Lovett says other businesses must follow suit and take action to protect their workers. She said: 'Workers have the right to expect to go to work and carry out their duties without any adverse effects on their health, and employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees.' CWU is assisting over 1,500 members with claims arising from the use of these oscillators or amplifiers in their work, many of whom are suffering with tinnitus.

The following details have been supplied by the PCS DWP Group: Email outside GSI can cost your job: DWP takes disciplinary action for Customer Contact by e-mail DWP email policy DWP has responded to PCS concerns about unfair disciplinary action for sending emails outside the Government Secure Internet (GSI) with a policy change on 23 March 2011. Security Notice 01/11 allows emails to be sent outside GSI in 16 specific circumstances without the need for approved encryption. However, consultation with PCS is continuing on the need to change disciplinary policy for simple mistakes/genuine errors. Avoid simple mistakes Some simple mistakes from customer contact by email have resulted in disciplinary action. Management have provided some basic guidance to help staff comply with DWP rules when Security Notice 01/11 does not apply: Most emails or attachments from customers will probably contain identity information such as national insurance number, date of birth, address, or other sensitive details about their claim. This is Restricted Information and cannot be sent outside of GSI without encryption. So, if an employee responds to any customer emails, even if only to confirm receipt, they must make sure to delete the restricted data from the reply. Failure to do so would be a security breach and the email would be detected by the Email Content Filtering process and will result in a referral to line management as a disciplinary issue. If there is a need to forward the customer’s email to another colleague, an employee must not CC the customer to the message that is sent on. That would still contain the restricted data that would go outside of GSI and in the event of a colleague replying to all, the same would happen again. If the customer’s initial email does not contain sufficient identity information, staff must not respond by asking him/her to send more details by email. We shouldn’t encourage customers to put their data at risk in an insecure medium. Instead, they should be asked to telephone, but when they do staff must still satisfy themselves that they are dealing with the customer. Individuals need to be sure the content of any email sent outside of GSI complies with DWP email and security policies. Emailing restricted information outside GSI, even by mistake, is considered gross misconduct by DWP unless allowed under Security Notice 01/11. Best practice is: don’t click on Reply or Forward. only use New Mail, if an email reply is needed, simply giving alternative contact options such as telephone, post or fax, unless Security Notice 1/11 applies. PCS opposes unfairness Unfair disciplinary action for simple mistakes is being opposed by PCS. More advice will follow.

Mick says at Spring Ne’er cast a clout till May be out. And May not be out yet, tha knows!

Quiz Results Mick and Grant’s Love Quiz Mickey Poo and Grantington back with the results of their annual Love Quiz. What a pair of Old Romantics we are. Here are the answers: Answers 1 The TV series starring Gavin MacLeod and Jill Whelan was the Love Boat Answers 2 Courtney Love’s musician partner was Kurt Cobain Answer 3 According to the advert Lady Loves Milk Tray Answer 4 Alf Valentine played cricket for the West Indies Answer 5 “Loveless” was a critically acclaimed album by My Bloody Valentine Answer 6 Love Cats was a hit record for The Cure The winner who receives a mystery prize of chocs was Mike Rimmer from Warbreck. Well done! Mickey Poo and Grantington

Emma's Old UTMP Quick Quiz Ems here back with the results of my quickie about the Mighty Pool. Syd Beavers was the leader of the Atomic Boys. His duck (which was Tangerine) was called Puskas The winner who receive a mystery prize of chocs was Julie Bowkett from Warbreck. Well done! Ems

Branch Annual General Meeting 2011 The Branch Annual General Meeting took place on Thursday 24th February 2011. The following were elected: a. Branch Officers: Chair - Martin Jones Deputy Chair - Grant McClure Vice Chair - Fred Claber Branch Secretary - Duncan Griffiths Branch Deputy Secretary - Emma Haslehurst Branch Deputy Secretary - Chris Parkinson Branch Deputy Secretary - Jon Colgan Asst Branch Secretary (DCS) - Dean Rhodes Asst Branch Secretary (CSA) - Bill Robison Asst Branch Secretary (Departmental Directorates) - Charles Hancock Asst Branch Secretary (Job Centre Plus) - There was a vacancy. Treasurer - Jacqui Dunkerley Assistant Treasurer - Clark Nuttall Organiser - Mick Daniels 203 Votes Elected - Michelle Duncan 26 Votes Deputy Organiser - Lee Wallace-Dand Deputy Organiser - Clare Bat Or Deputy Organiser - Katya Lawder Membership Officer - Carl Erwin Equal Opportunities Officer - Gloria Hodgkinson b. Branch Auditors: John Manning and Diane Noblett c. National and DWP Group Conference Delegates (5 posts): As Charles Hancock had withdrawn his nomination the following were elected unopposed: • National Conference Clare Bat Or, Michelle Duncan, Carl Erwin, Grant McClure and Dean Rhodes were elected unopposed. • DWP Group Conference Clare Bat Or, Michelle Duncan, Carl Erwin, Grant McClure and Dean Rhodes were elected unopposed. d. Branch Executive Committee members: Norcross: Lynne Kennedy and Lorraine McCartney Warbreck: Victor Carman, Michelle Duncan, Gregg Fothergill, Malcolm Phair, Dave Ray,

Garry Wild , Lisa Wright, Alistair Mitchell and Deborah Jones Peel Park: Peter Hitchen

Private Sector: Kevin O’Grady and Lloyd Williams. e. Local Representatives Warbreck: Jim Marsh and Joy Mellor The AGM discussed the Annual Report, the Financial Statements and received the Chair’s address. There were many motions that were carried and the details of which are contained in the minutes of the AGM (which have been

circulated). One of the highlights of the AGM was the contribution from the guest speaker Mark Serwotka. The points that he raised have been summarised as follows: Mark thanked the Branch for the invite and stated

that he had supported the Branch and thanked the Branch activists for their work and support of PCS. Mark indicated that he started work for the DHSS, as it was then, in South Wales in the early 1980s. He advised that he worked on the frontline in low paid employment. He indicated that he was advised to join the Civil Service as it was a well-paid, safe, job with a good pension and that as a Civil Servant you would be well respected in the community. He indicated that this proved not to be the case, but the Public still believe that it is the case. He indicated that in many ways the Public were given the wrong impression of Civil Servants. He explained that Civil Servants have an important role to play in all areas of society. He advised that politicians attack Civil Servants, cut our Pay and our jobs, and that all Governments do this.

He indicated that the last Government privatised more work than any previous administration; they cut over a hundred thousand jobs, tried to cut our Pension, and tried to cut our redundancy terms. He advised that PCS had a good track record of defending members against the attacks. He highlighted the 2005 attacks on our Pensions when the then Prime Minister said that there was no option other than to impose detrimental terms on existing members, however the Government had been obliged to find another option by Trade

Union members standing together. He indicated that the last Government had a target driven ethos towards the Public Sector, and that they introduced private managers to bring in cuts. He indicated

that the DWP had the worst management in the Civil Service. He indicated that in the DWP there were draconian sickness absence policies and also people were being sacked on capability grounds. He indicated that these measures were being abused to try and get rid of people on the cheap.

He continued to explain that in one area members were advised that 50% of the staff were going to be made redundant and that a private sector HR company had been brought in to administer the selection process, which entailed an IQ test. If you failed the test, or

failed to sit the test then you would be made redundant. People off on maternity leave would therefore be made redundant. When we challenged this, the private HR Company said that they would provide childcare including for

AGM Review

someone who was due to give birth 48 hours before their test. He indicated that PCS got the exercise stopped by threatening action and that membership increased from 20 to 70%. In the end he indicated that all those who wanted to go went and those who wanted to stay stayed. Mark continued to explain that when the Union says “no” that we can make a difference however there was a need for people to stand together. The General Secretary then turned to the period ahead. He indicated that already over a hundred thousand Civil Service jobs have been cut over the last four years. There had been pay freezes and below inflation pay rises, there were threats of a raft of privatisations and we have been told that the contribution cost of our Pension will be trebling in 3 years, together with an increase to the age at which you have to work to get your Pension and to have to pay in longer to get less.

Mark Serwotka then went on to the issue of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, which he explained that the Government had pushed the changes through Parliament and that we had started a legal challenge against. He indicated that it wasn’t just in the Civil

Service but the Public Sector that the Government wanted to cuts hundreds of thousands of jobs. He advised that on the Fylde the jobs prospects would look very bleak without Public Sector jobs. He stated that 600,000 jobs could go in the Public Sector and 700, 000 in the private sector working on Public Sector contracts if the cuts were enacted. He turned to the point about the attacks from the Government on benefits, on education fees and

allowances. He explained that the increase in VAT had hit the low paid the hardest. He explained that the Government has instead a vision of the Big Society where volunteers working for nothing would take the place of the Public Sector. He indicated that there was a big battle ahead. Mark Serwotka then stated that there was an alternative to the cuts, indicating that the Government through the media had managed to whip up concerns that if there weren’t massive cuts then we would end up like Greece, which he explained was not true, but was done to make people think that they could not resist the cuts. He explained that in the recent history of Britain there have been more than 50 years when the economic situation of the ratio of debt to the GDP was worse than at present and at times twice as bad. He indicated that as a country we are not near bankruptcy, and nowhere near as bad as many other countries. He explained that what was needed was to invest our way out of debt. He advised that we have done this before and it needs doing again.

He indicated that there was also the need to address the Tax Gap of £120 billion. He advised that it was the rich and big companies who avoided paying tax. He indicated that the cuts in total

were £83 billion whereas the uncollected tax from the rich and big companies stood at £120 billion. He advised that these issues have been raised with the Government however the tax avoiders are their friends. He stated that the Government’s own advisors avoid tax and that the banks that we own have advisors to tell people how to avoid tax. He indicated that the Tax Avoiders are the real scroungers. He stated that Benefit Fraud is £1 billion however Tax Avoidance is £120 billion and the media should focus on the Tax Avoiders as much as they do on others.

He indicated that we don’t need cuts or austerity, what we need is for the tax due to be collected from the rich and big

companies. He advised that the Government do understand this but they don’t want to address these issues. He began to draw the points to a conclusion by stating that there are tough struggles ahead but the question will be do we want to sit back, or are we going to try and defend our jobs, our pay, our pensions, our conditions of service. He explained that none of us voted for the cuts, for the rise in VAT, for the rise in the tuition fees, but the Government are now doing them. He explained that as they have no mandate for this then there is a need to put pressure on the MPs who are voting this through Parliament. He explained that on 26th March 2011 there was

the March for the Alternative in London and called as many people as possible to join the March. He indicated that it was a TUC event and other Public

Sector workers were taking a prominent role together with PCS in making this a success. He explained that members should write to their MP about the attacks on our jobs. He advised that PCS

were going to the Courts to defend our Terms and Conditions and the attacks on the CSCS. He explained that the Government were trying to trick people and stampede them into going on the cheap in terms of the new redundancy payments by making it financially beneficial to volunteer to go rather than waiting to be made redundant. He explained that there were often ridiculous

timescales of a week for people to make their minds up if they wanted to volunteer to leave. He said that this was part of the trick to panic

people, and that only if people really wanted to go on those terms should they consider doing so. He explained that there was legal action being taken forward to defend the changes from RPI to CPI on the Pensions up-rating and that in 2005 the Government had said that they wouldn’t talk to us about the

Pensions changes however the threat of Industrial Action from several of the Public Sector unions had made them change their position and to use a reverse gear. He concluded that it may well be the case that

we have to ballot the members together with other Public Sector unions for action to defend our jobs and terms and conditions. There was then a lively question and answer session.

The Branch will be looking at arrangements for the 2012 AGM in due course.

If your ballot paper goes to your home address please take this document home with you! The purpose of this article is to advise members that the ballot papers for the PCS National Elections should be issued circa Thursday 14th April 2011, which means that very shortly you will be afforded the opportunity to elect the people who will represent PCS at the highest level within the union. The National body deals with issues such as: • National Pay Bargaining (campaigning for the restoration) • The Civil Service Pensions Scheme • The Cuts in Civil Service Jobs As you can see from the above it is vitally important that the people we elect are prepared to advance members’ interests. The Branch recommends (as agreed at the Annual General Meeting) that you participate in the elections and furthermore that you vote for the following candidates: President: Janice Godrich

(Guest speaker at our 2008 AGM)

Deputy/Vice Presidents (4): Dave Bean Paula Brown Sue Bond John McInally National Executive Committee:

(General Constituency - 30) Ian Albert Kevin Greenway Kevin McHugh Mark Baker Sam Hall Lorna Merry Alan Brown Joel Heyes Chris Morrison Eddie Childs Zita Holbourne Andy Reid Steve Comer Jon Jamieson Dave Richards Alan Dennis Emily Kelly Derek Thomson Mike Derbyshire Adam Khalif Glenn Siddall-

Butchers Mary Ferguson Neil License Hector Wesley Cheryl Gedling Marion Lloyd Paul Williams Jackie Green Dominic

McFadden Rob Williams

If elected the above candidates will pursue the following objectives: ACTION ON PAY

End the wild variation in pay between our public sector members, which sees staff in the same grade or similar work earning thousands of pounds less compared with their colleagues in better paying areas. All members working in the same grade or ‘like work’ to be uprated to the best paying levels without any detriment to those best paid members.

A campaign for the return of national pay bargaining for our public sector members. Whilst progress has been made, more still needs to be done, including further legal challenges, and improved publicity for the aims of the union both within and outside the Civil Service.

PCS NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ELECTIONS 2011

Opposition to the pay freeze. All staff to reach their maxima within 5 years and to do so on shortened pay ranges.The

vigorous use of equal pay legislation. Opposition to all forms of performance related pay, including team based performance pay

and relative performance assessment. Performance Pay discriminates against administrative grades, ethnic minority staff, part-time staff and people with disabilities. All pay awards should be equality proofed to ensure that they are not discriminatory.

Strengthening the resources devoted to the organisation and representation of private sector members and ensuring genuine bargaining on behalf of members in the private sector.

ACTION ON JOBS Campaign to oppose the attacks on jobs and services building on the momentum gained from the campaign to date and the action on 5 November 2004, including the large scale campaign launched in late 2006 through 2007 which resulted in overwhelming levels of membership support for the campaign and made the employer accede to National talks on Pay and Jobs. Opposition to the Government’s large scale cuts in jobs announced in 2010. ACTION ON PENSIONS Vigorously campaign to defend members’ pensions and improve pension provision for members in private companies. Secured major success in defending members’ pensions rights, protected the final salary scheme and the right to retire at 60 for existing staff. Negotiated a new Pensions scheme for new entrants, with a faster accrual rate. Opposition to the Government’s attack on our Pension Scheme. ACTION ON PRIVATISATION Continue the campaign to defend the public service and oppose the privatisation of the Civil Service. Build upon the Public Service not Private Profit campaign that they spearheaded, uniting 14 major unions in doing so, in a campaign against privatisation. HOURS AND LEAVE • In line with the precedents set in a number of areas, PCS will campaign for 30 days annual leave irrespective of length of service and reduction in the working week to 35 hours. FOR IMPROVED CONDITIONS OF SERVICE • Defend the right to paid sick leave. Challenge the Cabinet Office’s attacks on sickness absence in the Civil Service. A proper investigation of the underlying causes of sickness absence is needed. End the attacks on staff who are sick and the erosion of family friendly policies, • The abolition of reporting systems that control and pressurise members by objective setting and pay linked to box markings. • Raising the skill levels of staff, particularly in the areas of new technology. • Improving the training and development of staff. Particularly bringing on “talent” within the Civil Service, rather than bringing in “talent” from outside. • Campaigning Nationally for Call Centre members’ rights If your ballot paper goes to your home address, please take this document home with you. If you require any further details please do not hesitate to contact Branch Office.

Make London 2012 'sweat-free' The London Olympics next year should be 'sweat free', a campaign coalition has said. Playfair 2012, which brings together unions and campaigning groups, this week called on International Olympic Committee (IOC) members to ensure all workplaces in the many Olympic and sportswear supply chains are free from poverty wages, insecure employment and excessive hours, and that the workers are allowed to join unions. IOC members were in London this week for a two-day board meeting on the London Games. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber handed the IOC representatives letters from trade unionists around the globe calling for fair treatment for workers producing Olympic merchandise. The campaigners want the IOC to include a clause in the Olympic charter and in its code of ethics ensuring that all companies involved in the manufacture of sportswear and other Olympic branded products do not exploit or abuse their workforce. They warn that workers in China, Indonesia and Turkey who were employed to make goods for previous Games complained of extreme pressure to meet production quotas, dangerous working conditions, extremely long hours and low wages. TUC's Brendan Barber said: 'We want British sports fans who are applying for tickets to Olympic events in 2012 to be able to do so safe in the knowledge that no worker has suffered making any sportswear or merchandise going on sale between now and next summer.' He added: 'There has been exploitation and ill-treatment in the run up to every previous Olympic Games, and we fear that such abuses are unlikely to have disappeared completely. Only the IOC can stop those abuses for good, and we want them to put the Olympic ideal of fair play into practice in their code of ethics.'

Long work hours a heart attack risk Clocking up extra hours at work can increase markedly the risk of heart disease, UK researchers have found. The research team from University College London warned people who work an 11-hour day compared with those who work a standard seven or eight hours increase their risk of heart disease by 67 per cent. The findings, reported on 5 April in the Annals of Internal Medicine, are based on the ongoing 'Whitehall' study of 7,095 civil service employees whose health they have been tracking since 1985. They suggest GPs should now be asking their patients about working hours. Lead researcher Professor Mika Kivimäki said: 'Considering that including a measurement of working hours in a GP interview is so simple and useful, our research presents a strong case that it should become standard practice.' He added: 'This new information should help improve decisions regarding medication for heart disease. It could also be a wake-up call for people who overwork themselves, especially if they already have other risk factors.' Over the course of the 11-year study, 192 of the participants suffered a heart attack. People who worked 11 hours or more a day were more than half as likely again to have a heart attack than those who worked shorter hours. Professor Stephen Holgate of the Medical Research Council (MRC), which part-funded the investigation, said: 'This study might make us think twice about the old adage 'hard work won't kill you'. Tackling lifestyles that are detrimental to health is a key area for the MRC, and this research reminds us that it's not just diet and exercise we need to think about.'

Government will mark Workers' Memorial Day The UK government will continue to recognise Workers' Memorial Day, the global 28 April event each year when unions and campaigners vow to remember the dead and fight for the living. Last year was the first to make the event official in the UK, after a decision by the previous Labour administration. This year, the government has confirmed it will continue to promote the event on its Directgov website. A Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesperson told SHP Online, the magazine of safety professionals' body IOSH: 'Following the UK's official recognition of Workers' Memorial Day in 2010, we will ensure that the day is appropriately publicised on the government's Directgov website. But official recognition is only one side of the story. The main responsibility for controlling work-related health and safety risks rests with those who create the risks. Workers' Memorial Day is a stark reminder of why that responsibility is so important. The government extends its deepest sympathies to all those for whom the day is especially poignant.' The TUC is encouraging unions to use Workers' Memorial Day on 28 April to campaign against the cuts in HSE and local authority funding and enforcement activity.

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

Part Year Contract Changes – DWP Advice Under and Overpayments A common problem of unexpected under and overpayments was identified in 2010 when employees start a new part time or full time part year working pattern before the last one has ended. To help raise awareness Resource Management introduced a message, to alert employees before they submit the new working pattern, stating the change may cause an under or overpayment. This Briefing provides PCS Branches with current advice on this issue and may also be used to raise awareness. DWP Salary Advice Advice for employees is provided by DWP on the Intranet under Salary Advice/Part Year Appointment Advice, Q&A 7, which states:

Q7. An employee works part-year and receives an averaged salary every month. The manager has agreed a change to the employee’s contracted weekly hours and/or their periods of non-working. How will this affect the employee’s salary?

The employee’s salary on RM will be reassessed for the period from the start of the previous 365/366 day work pattern to the day before the new work pattern starts. This may result in an under or over payment of salary depending on when the change in work pattern occurs, taking into account the working hours and periods of non-contracted attendance of the previous work pattern.

A new working pattern, including average salary, will be created from the date the new working pattern starts and will run for a calendar year (365/366 days) from that date.

DWP Working Hours/Patterns Advice Advice for employees is also provided under Working Hours and Working Patterns Advice, Q&A 11, which states:

Q11. One of my team has applied to change their part year working pattern during their current 53 week working pattern. Will their existing work pattern be re-averaged to the end of the current 53 week period?

No, any change to the existing work pattern will close that work pattern. This will result in a new 53 week working pattern being required. It should not be a variation of the existing one. It is essential that an accurate record of any change to the current working pattern is maintained. There are no circumstances when an employee can have their working pattern re-input from their existing start date. In all circumstances, the existing working pattern will be re-assessed from the original start date to the day before the new working pattern starts. This will result in the employee either being under or over paid and action will be taken accordingly. Recovery of Overpayments These overpayments are normally recoverable. However, PCS guidance on Recovery of Overpayments of Pay, including Hardship, is provided in Branch Briefing DWP/BB/026/09 which can be accessed under HR Guidance on the PCS DWP Group internet website: www.pcs.org.uk/dwp

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

Welfare Reform Bill – Government outlines plans for Universal Credit The government has introduced a new bill into parliament that contains many proposals for changes to the welfare and benefits system. The main thrust of the proposals is aimed at drastically reducing the amount spent on benefits by a massive £18 billion. The government claims that no one will be worse off as a result of the changes, but the small print shows that in fact 1.7 million families will be worse off, many by as much as £25 per week. What is Universal Credit? A central element of the government’s plans is to introduce a new benefit called Universal Credit. This is a new single benefit that is planned to replace a number of existing benefits, most of which are currently delivered by Jobcentre Plus. These include:

Jobseekers Allowance (income related) Employment Support allowance (income related) Income Support Child Tax Credits Working Tax Credits Housing Benefit Social Fund Budgeting Loans

Online claiming The intention of the government is for Universal Credit to be primarily delivered online over the internet. They believe that they are able to effectively set up IT systems that will remove up to 80% of the interventions by DWP staff that are currently required to process a claim to benefit. This IT is still under development and is initially going to be tested on JSA in 2 regions later this year before being fully rolled out in 2012.

PCS is extremely sceptical that a new and complex IT scheme like this can be delivered to this timescale and be fit for purpose. While DWP maintain that the IT development is on track, experience of previous major IT projects in DWP has shown us that such projects all too often can end in disaster. Even more ambitious are the plans for Universal Credit to have an IT connection to all employers so that claimants’ earnings can be monitored in ‘real time’ and benefit payments adjusted accordingly. Social Fund Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants (CCG’s) A key element of the welfare reform bill transfers the responsibility for CCG’s and Crisis Loans to local authorities. Local authorities, and the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales, will be expected to develop new systems to replace CCG’s and Crisis Loans with ministers openly promoting local variations in service. PCS is urgently seeking clarification from DWP management on what these changes mean for PCS members working on Social Fund. What does this mean for PCS members? The potential implications of these proposals are extremely concerning, not just for DWP staff who currently deliver these benefits, but also for members in HMRC delivering tax credits and for local authority staff who work on Housing Benefit. If the government is able to deliver a new IT system that does enable Universal Credit to be claimed and processed by online ‘self service’, then the number of staff required to deliver it is likely to be significantly less than the 60,000 staff who currently deliver these benefits in DWP, HMRC and local authorities. It is impossible at this stage to put any figures on what this may mean in jobs. The bill has still to go through Parliament and until we can see how any new IT system actually operates we cannot even be sure that it can be delivered. Who delivers Universal Credit? No decision has yet been made about how Universal Credit will be delivered. DWP has been given the overall responsibility for implementing Universal Credit but this does not mean that DWP will necessarily deliver it operationally. A range of possible options on how Universal Credit could be delivered are being drawn up and are likely to

be published later this year. Given the political preferences of the current government these options are likely to include the use of the private sector or some kind of mutual organisation as well as, or even instead of, the public sector. Even if we assume that the public sector does deliver part, or all, of Universal Credit, it is unclear what the respective roles may be of DWP, Jobcentre Plus, HMRC or local authorities. Timetable Universal Credit, assuming it passes through parliament, is scheduled to begin operationally from October 2013, with a four year period of transition during which the existing benefits and tax credits are moved onto the new single benefit. These timescales are extremely challenging for a programme of this size and complexity and again PCS is sceptical as to whether this is achievable. PCS’ View PCS is very concerned about the implications of Universal Credit not only for our members whose jobs may be at risk but also for the wider public who will suffer from this attack on the benefit system and the welfare state. PCS is committed to playing a leading role in the campaign against the government’s welfare reform plans and to arguing for the alternative of a properly funded welfare system that addresses the needs of the poor and vulnerable in society. Keeping Members Informed PCS is discussing all of these proposals with DWP senior managers to identify and assess the potential impact on our members. We will ensure that DWP fully discusses all of the staffing implications of these changes with PCS. We will insist on strict adherence to the redundancy avoidance protocols agreed with the Cabinet Office as well as ensuring members’ legal and contractual rights are fully observed. We will continue to keep members fully informed about Universal Credit as it develops.

Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender

History Month (February). Ending the Silence Since 1997 the position of LGBT people has improved as a result of human rights legislation. Section 28 was repealed in 2009. It is now time to deal with the legacy of silence. This is not only in the interests of LGBT people but of our whole society. Silence breeds ignorance and distorted images. From these come at best embarrassment; at worst hostility and hate crimes. We can break through the silence that surrounds the lives of people who do not conform to conventional notions about sexuality and gender. We can help to end the sense of isolation and bewilderment felt by so many LGBT people, particularly the young. We can make bullying unacceptable. We can also help to dispel the anxiety and confused rage that drive some people to aggressive behaviour. Tackling discrimination cannot be done in isolation. PCS who campaign against anti-gay bullying and harassment are not only targeting a specific problem they are also aiming to create a workplace where sexual orientation equality is a familiar concept and where LGBT members feel able to participate. PCS has a number of practical ways to communicate LGBT and anti bullying messages to the wider membership using their website including PCS magazines, and Proud LGBT magazine. The Branch holds anti bullying and harassment stands. The branch magazine (Hard Copy) is sent out electronically and the Branch Website reinforces the message that bullying behaviour including anti gay bullying is not acceptable. The Hard Copy also communicates DWP policies on discrimination and PCS Guidance and advice for representation.

Here goes the final quiz and we finish on a joke. All you have to do is to finish off the joke below, the funniest punch line will win. Jacqui will decide on the winner.

Joke: Why did the chicken cross the road at Easter?

Please finish off this joke with a funny punch line.

Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I have a very good sense of humour and like a laugh, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than Friday 20th of May 2011.

Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Grant

Grant’s Quick Easter Quiz

The End