HARD COPY

n o t

s o

ISSUE 37

When asked by our intrepid reporter did Jon Calgon like Easter Eggs? Jon said: “Nah”

Grant’s Quick Easter Quiz Yes it’s me Grant here again, this time with a quick quiz, you know that every time you see me as a rabbit there are bound to be jolly japes afoot. I never get any Easter eggs and regular readers will know that this is because someone pinches my eggs before I can get them. So, who do I say pinches my Easter eggs every year? Is it, that dastardly?

a) Duncan Griffiths b) Mick Daniels c) Jacqui Dunkerley

Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I never get any Easter eggs either, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than Friday 27th of May 2012. The winner will receive a mystery prize. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Grant

Editorial Blimey I appear to be doing the guest editorial. I think that this only happens so that I picture of me can appear in the newsletter. You would have thought that people would have seen enough of me in the local newspapers. I really must try and get them to do some better pictures of me (if that is possible).

There are some important times ahead in PCS with your opportunity to have your say on who runs the union and how the union is run. Talking of important decisions there is also a report on the Branch Annual General Meeting. The AGM takes important decisions on matters that influence PCS policy.

Hope you enjoy your Easter break (oh no does this means that I am in the rabbit costume rather than Grant!) and that you take some time to relax.

Enjoy this edition. Any feedback is always welcome.

Duncan

If your ballot papers go to your home address please take a print of this article document home with you! The National Executive Committee and DWP Group Executive Committee elections within PCS are due to take place soon (approximate dates for issue of ballot papers is detailed below). NEC The ballot papers for the PCS National Elections should be issued circa Thursday 19th April 2012, 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): Sue Bond; Kevin McHugh; Paula Brown; John McInally National Executive Committee: (General Constituency - 30) Ian Albert; Kevin Greenway; Lorna Merry; Mark Baker; Sam Hall; Chris Morrison; Clive Bryant; Zita Holbourne; Ian Pope; Ian Crossland; Jon Jamieson; Andy Reid; Alan Dennis; Andy Jennings; Dave Richards; Mike Derbyshire; Emily Kelly; Glen Siddall-Butcher; Mary Ferguson; Adam Khalif; Derek Thomson; Helen Flanagan; Neil License; Karen Watts; Cheryl Gedling; Marion Lloyd; Hector Wesley; Jackie Green; Dominic McFadden; Paul Williams. GEC From Thursday 26th April 2012 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 Fran Heathcote Vice President (5): Helen Flanagan; Martin Cavanagh; Adam Khalif; John McInally; Katrine Williams Asst Secretaries (7): Paul Barton; David Burke; Christine Cuthbert; Sam Hall; Jim Holmes; Tom Penn; Dave Richards Organiser: Derek Thomson Treasurer: Bashir Chilwan Journal Editor: Alan Smith Committee (21): Ian Bartholomew; Kevin McCafferty; Alison Carass; Marie McDonough; Tony Church; Dave Owens; Jason Ferraby; Mark Page; Steve Swainston; Ian Pope; Jimmy Gill; Carol Revell; Janice Godrich; Dean Rhodes; Sharon Green; Annette Rochester; Gavin Hartley; Sian Ruddick; Glen Hatwood; Steve West; Martin Jones.

(continued…)

Coming soon: PCS NEC and GEC ELECTIONS 2012

The candidates detailed on the previous page for both sets of elections, if elected, will campaign for: 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. Opposition to the pay freeze, and the Chancellor’s announcement to cap pay rises at one percent over the next two years.

• 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 those members.

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 and 2011. 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 with their proposals to make us pay more, work longer and receive less. 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 you require any further details please do not hesitate to contact Branch Office.

Olympics to get fairer thanks to TUC and Playfair The organisers of London 2012 are to introduce new measures designed to protect workers producing merchandise for this summer's Olympic Games, following evidence of exploitation uncovered by researchers working for the TUC and the Labour Behind the Label-led Playfair 2012 campaign. Their research showed child labour, excessive hours and dangerous working conditions amongst a host of violations. Now, after negotiations with the TUC, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) has agreed to get tougher with the factories in its supply chains. Following representations from the TUC and Labour Behind the Label that urgent action be taken, LOCOG has agreed to take concrete steps to ensure that workers making goods for the London Games have their rights respected. TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'LOCOG had gone further than any previous Games' organisers in adopting an ethical code and complaints mechanism, but as our research shows this hasn't been nearly enough to prevent abuses from taking place.' However it's not too late to make a difference for workers producing goods for London. We welcome LOCOG's acknowledgement that further action is necessary and its commitment to act immediately to ensure that factory owners can no longer exploit workers in the name of the Olympics. 'We're hopeful that a marker has now been set for all future Games and that the international Olympic Committee will play a leading role in taking this work forward so that the exploitation of workers in Olympic supply chains can become a thing of the past. This groundbreaking agreement should also help lead to better working conditions throughout the sporting industry.' Labour Behind the Label campaigner Sam Maher said: 'Although this agreement is long overdue, we welcome LOCOG's willingness now to take action. We hope to see these good intentions translated into concrete steps that will genuinely make a difference for workers.'

Unions say don't forget stress during recession Unions have called on the HSE and employers to make tackling stress a priority as British workers try to cope with growing financial uncertainty. While the emphasis has been on pay freezes and job losses unions have said that stress can have just as devastating effect. This follows new research by the University of Nottingham and University of Ulster which shows that work-related stress increases during a recession, leading to more employees taking time off. A study among tens of thousands of civil servants in Northern Ireland revealed that work-related stress increased by 40% during an economic downturn. It also found that the number of staff taking time off due to job stress increased by 25% and total time off due to these types of psychological problems increased by more than a third during a slump. TUC Head of health and safety, Hugh Robertson, said more attention has to be paid to the effects that cuts and economic hardship have on the mental health of the workforce. The economic crisis does not give employers immunity from complying with the law and the government, and regulators should be taking action to ensure that employers are risk assessing the implications of any staffing or organisational changes. Sarah Page, health and safety officer at the Prospect union, commented: "When workers face reduced job security and an increased workload it is no surprise that depression and anxiety increase, along with absences from work. People feel afraid, uncertain, less supported by managers, and less in control of their lives. "Previous studies of civil servants had shown that if organisational changes occur without consulting and involving the workforce, the effects on individuals are far more damaging. "This is an issue where government, employers and unions can make a difference by working together. Employers have a duty to ensure workers' health, safety and welfare at work, and that includes mental health. It shouldn't be about trying to mop up the mess when it's too late, but about introducing preventive measures and support networks."

AGM Report 2012

The Branch Annual General Meeting took place on Thursday 23rd February 2012, at the Layton Institute, Layton, Near Blackpool. This year the meeting had an afternoon start time. Unlike recent years there weren’t any elections for Branch Officers, Branch Executive Committee members and Conference delegates. The Officers elected (unopposed) were as follows: Chair - Martin Jones Deputy Chair - Grant McClure Vice Chair - Fred Claber Branch Secretary - Duncan Griffiths Branch Deputy Secretary - Jon Colgan Branch Deputy Secretary - Emma Haslehurst Branch Deputy Secretary - Chris Parkinson Assistant Branch Secretary (DCS) - Dean Rhodes Assistant Branch Secretary (Corp Cen/Sh Services) - Charles Hancock Assistant Branch Secretary (CSA) - Bill Robison Treasurer - Jacqui Dunkerley Organiser - Mick Daniels Deputy Organiser (3 posts) - Clare Bat Or

- Katya Lawder - Lee Wallace-Dand

Equal Opportunities Officer - Gloria Hodgkinson The Branch Executive Committee members were as follows: Carl Erwin, Gregg Fothergill, Deborah Jones, Lynne Kennedy, Paul King, Joy Mellor, Alistair Mitchell, Kevin O’Grady, Malcolm Phair, Dave Ray, Danny Sullivan, Garry Wild,. Lloyd Williams. The meeting also received the financial accounts, which were presented by the Branch Treasurer Jacqui Dunkerley; the Branch Secretary (Duncan Griffiths) presented the Annual Report and the Branch Chair (Martin Jones) did a Chair’s review.

The highlight of the meeting, for many, was the guest speaker, Jane Aitchison. Jane is the DWP Group President. She gave an excellent speech making the following points: Jane thanked the Branch for the invite and stated that she had supported the Branch and thanked the Branch activists for their work and support of PCS. She indicated that the Branch was the largest in the DWP. She stated that she was aware of the good campaigning work that the Branch undertakes and paid tribute to the support that the Branch activists provide to the members. Jane explained that 2011 had been a very difficult year with ever increasing workloads and attacks on our pay, pensions, jobs and the

a report by Duncan Griffiths, Branch Secretary.

services that we provide to the public. She highlighted that increasing unemployment has created more work for DWP members. She explained the need for service to the public and was appalled at the manner in which the Government tries to scapegoat the unemployed, the sick and the disabled for the financial problems that the financial sector has created for the country.

Jane explained that there was a need for us to unite with Pensioners, the sick and the disabled as they are part of society, as are the unemployed. Jane highlighted the problems of people being able to find work, particularly young people. Jane then turned to the campaigns that PCS has been involved in, beginning with the need to oppose privatisation and to bring privatised work back in house. Jane then highlighted A4E who are a private company, who had been undertaking DWP work, allegedly trying to get people into work, and they have been involved in alleged fraud such as putting the unemployed on non existent training courses, filling in blank timesheets, and using sleight of hand techniques to try and make it look like people had been found jobs, when they hadn’t. She explained that they had had their DWP contract ended, however this demonstrated what happens when you allow people to try and make profit out of poverty, A4E were allegedly being paid for results. Their results were all about making profit by dubious means.

Jane then highlighted the recent scandal with so called work experience that wasn’t really work experience at all, just unpaid work. She indicated that PCS opposes people working for nothing, as they should be paid the rate for the job and should be in work. She indicated that it was noticeable that the campaign to oppose this scandal had resulted in Tesco’s now having to accept that they should pay people for working in their stores. Jane explained that the idea of unpaid workers was a threat to all workers, as the unpaid workers will drive down the wages of those who normally do those jobs. She explained that the Government needs instead to invest in real jobs. She stated that there was a lot of work that needed to be done, and highlighted the achievement of getting agreement for another four thousand DWP staff to be recruited, however she indicated that more were needed. Jane then turned to the campaign that the DWP Group had run on telephony, and mentioned the CCD dispute. She indicated that in CCD there had been the worst example of call centre management in the Civil Service, with over-monitoring of the staff including going to the toilet (where there was a maximum allowance of 15 minutes in the day for going to the toilet), a resultant high turnover of the staff and huge sickness absence rates. She indicated that there was no real customer service just targets. Jane explained that there had been a well supported campaign which had started with compulsory transfers to the call centres and members indicating that they weren’t prepared to have their terms and conditions destroyed. She indicated that this escalated and there was successful industrial action and talks with ACAS over improvements. Jane advised that the gains secured in CCD would be used to try and secure improvements in other areas of DWP Network services and call centres. Jane then turned to the pensions attacks.

She indicated that in DWP members had stuck together and there had been strong support for the action. She stated that 2.5 million people had taken action on 30th November 2011 and there had been huge public support, including opinion polls supporting the action that we took.

Jane advised that the Government were taxing our pensions to pay for the bankers’ crisis, and that the Government were trying to bully us to back down. She highlighted the coalition that was still being formed to oppose the attacks on our pensions, with sixteen other unions potentially supporting the next stages of the action. Jane stated that the stakes were high as from 1st April we may well be asked to pay more for our pensions, work longer and receive less. She explained that there was a real danger that people would opt out of the Pension Scheme.

She stated that a fight back was needed. She explained that there was a consultative ballot taking place shortly about the next stages of the campaign and there was a need for members to back the campaign. Jane then turned to pay and the impact of the pay freeze and the increase in prices. She highlighted a survey that PCS had commissioned that brought to the fore the problems of the pay freeze and the very tough financial impact that it was having. She mentioned that there was a double hit in DWP with low pay and no pay progression. She explained that along with pensions; pay is a crucial issue. Jane highlighted the vital job that we do, and mentioned the fact that we need job security and proper terms and conditions. She concluded that there was a need for members to stick together, together we can win. There was then a lively question and answer session.

Health and Safety under threat Our health and safety is under attack and we must defend it! The government believes that health and safety is a burden on business. It is putting the safety and health of Britain's workers under threat, by trying to slash the laws that protect you, cut enforcement and inspection and make it harder to win compensation for injuries. These proposed cuts are not inevitable. North West trade unions, safety campaigners and the TUC want proper legal protection for all those in work, a strong HSE, and a right to seek justice if things go wrong.

Workers' Memorial Day this year falls on a Saturday so the TUC is calling for a day of action to defend health and safety.

Never has the message been more important than now. Let's ensure that we make it clear that we want clear commitments and action from those who should be protecting us. For further information please visit www.tuc.org.uk/wmd

Preston Event, 28 April 2012: 11.45pm - 1.00pm Venue: Preston Flag Market Songs, puppet theatre and speakers, followed by the laying of wreaths, at the Corn Exchange, in memory of those killed, injured or made ill at work. If you know of anyone who we should make special mention of at our event, please contact Janet Newsham 07709287217 (Supplied by the TUC)

The following two pages have been supplied by the TUC: Benefit tests are not fit for the job Government figures showing over a third of incapacity benefit claimants are fit to work are 'hardly surprising', the TUC has said, charging that the government tests have been designed specifically to get people off the benefit. Figures released last week by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) show that for the first 141,100 incapacity benefits claimants reassessed, '37 per cent of those whose claims have been concluded have been found fit for work. The remaining 63 per cent of claimants were entitled to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)', the payment replacing incapacity benefit. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber responded: 'It's hardly surprising that a test specifically designed to make fewer people qualify for disability benefits is passing more people as 'fit to work'. These tests have deemed terminally ill patients and people with severe disabilities as 'fit to work', are costing taxpayers a small fortune in successful legal appeals and serve no clear benefit to the very people they are supposed to help. The point of a fitness test should be to identify whether someone is really fit to work, not to kick people off benefits whatever the cost.' According to a 19 March article in The Guardian: 'Judging by the mounting pressure on appeal tribunals, where hundreds of thousands of people have flooded to contest the decisions, the system is not working smoothly.' It adds: 'There was a 56 per cent rise during 2010/11 in the number of people appealing rulings that they are fit for work and the tribunals system has become overloaded.

Since the system was trialled at the end of 2009, at least 390,000 people have gone to appeal; tribunal courts have been forced to open on Saturdays and to increase staff by 30 per cent since January 2010, to deal with the backlog; the cost of these appeals is expected to reach £50m a year by the end of this month. The scale of the problem is startling; the tribunals service has radically increased its capacity in order to cope with a possible half a million new cases over the next 12 months.' Government silent on safety law cull targets The government has confirmed a Budget commitment to cull or revise 84 per cent of the UK's health and safety laws, but can't or won't say which laws are in its sights. Questioned by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) publication SHP Online after chancellor George Osborne's 21 March statement, a Treasury spokesperson confirmed '167 of the 199 health and safety regulations considered as part of the Red Tape Challenge' will either be withdrawn or improved. She could not give a more detailed breakdown, however. The TUC condemned the Budget as a series of measures 'for the rich by the rich' incorporating a 'regurgitated mish-mash' of pro-business moves that tell employers safety is unimportant and can be ignored. Criticisms continued this week, with one personal injury expert demanding greater clarity from the government on its plans. David Urpeth, national head of workplace injury at the law firm Irwin Mitchell, said the deregulatory moves were 'very worrying.' He added: 'The preciseness with which the figure

of 84 per cent has been put forward indicates that ministers have a clear idea on how they can make changes. What we want to see now is a full breakdown of the suggested changes and how they intend to implement them over the next couple of years.' The personal injury expert said: 'It needs to be remembered that a good health and safety record can mean more business as such matters are being increasingly considered by prospective customers.' Insurers turn a blind eye to work's real harm The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has called 'for action to free businesses from the fear of the UK's compensation culture and overzealous interpretations of health and safety rules that could hold back Britain's economic recovery.' The call from the insurance industry lobby group came at a Chartered Institute of Environmental Health conference on 14 March. Nick Starling, the ABI's director of general Insurance, said: 'Businesses, especially the small businesses crucial to our economic recovery, need to be able to thrive, not operate worried by the constant risk of being sued for the most minor of injuries and confused by health and safety requirements. Insurance is here to help businesses do what they do best, free from the fear of being sued or engulfed in red tape.' However, unions and industrial disease argue that over 90 per cent of all workers harmed by their jobs receive no compensation. And workers are only entitled to any payout if they can demonstrate this harm - which could include the occupational diseases that claim tens of thousands of lives

every year - is the result of their employer's negligence. ABI, though, makes no mention of these serious cases, instead focusing on 'slip and trip' style liability claims.' ABI's Nick Starling told the conference: 'The ABI has long argued for reforms to make our legal system more efficient, tackle spurious claims and relieve the burden on UK business. To help all firms, the government must implement its reforms without delay.' In February, prime minister David Cameron invited ABI, insurance firms and industry bodies to a Downing Street 'compensation summit' to devise the new policy. No workers' groups or industrial injury and disease advocacy groups were invited. HSE charging scheme is delayed Plans to introduce a pay-as-you-go-wrong scheme for workplace safety offenders have been put back by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). HSE now says its cost recovery scheme, Fee for Intervention (FFI), which was scheduled to start in April 2012, will be delayed until the autumn. The scheme sets out to recover costs of up to £124-an-hour from those who break health and safety laws. HSE says this is reimbursement for the time and effort it spends on helping to put matters right - investigating and taking enforcement action. The official safety watchdog adds that law-abiding businesses will be free from costs and will not pay a penny. Gordon MacDonald, HSE's programme director, said: 'The government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right - and not the public purse. The government intends to proceed with the FFI scheme as

recommended to ministers by HSE's Board in December in response to the formal consultation that took place last summer.' He said discussions on the details of the scheme had not concluded. 'Therefore, FFI will not be introduced in April but at the next available opportunity, which is likely to be October 2012.' HSE says it is taking advantage of the extra time to work further with businesses to improve their understanding of the scheme and how it will affect them. Warning on the UK's dangerous role in Europe A senior member of the European Parliament has warned that the UK government is bidding to undermine UK workplace safety law in Europe as well as at home. Glenis Willmott, a UK MEP and Labour's leader in Europe, said 'many people might be surprised to find out just how many of their rights are secured under the 'health and safety' heading' of European legislation, including directives on working hours and key workplace rights for pregnant women. 'Yet it is a critical time for health and safety,' she wrote in a 23 March blog posting. 'In February, the Tory leader in the EU, then Martin Callanan, called for these two directives to be scrapped entirely, allowing the UK government to take away these rights. David Cameron has also said health and safety laws should be repatriated, in particular the Working Time Directive. Meanwhile, in December, Conservative and Lib Dem MEPs called for strict limits on new health and safety laws - and these MEPs are expected to be at the forefront of a new 'informal committee' on health and safety in the European Parliament.' Commenting after

addressing a safety conference organised by the construction union UCATT, she said: 'It is vital that employees and trade unionists understand how important these EU laws are to ordinary people's working lives. We must all realise, too, that when the government calls for 'repatriation' of health and safety laws to the UK, they are really calling for important rights to be stripped away from workers.' She added: 'Bogus headlines about 'health and safety gone mad' can often cloud the issue - but in reality, as UCATT members in the construction industry know, people's lives and livelihoods depend on their health and safety at work.'

TUC

The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group.

The final report from the Network Services Review has now been published. This review was set up to look at working methods and employee practices across DWP contact centres based on the experience of the former PDCS, Jobcentre Plus and other contact centre networks. Aims of the Network Services Review The aim was to identify and implement best practice recognising the need for an efficient and effective operation, excellent customer service and that an engaged and committed workforce is an important part of keeping our contact centres amongst the best in the UK. Specifically the review also included:

• An examination of the causes of sickness within Network Services to try to eliminate them and improve attendance levels.

• A review of call times and scripts with the aim of improving customer service, call resolution and reducing hand offs

• Consideration of resource levels to ensure that DWP contact centres are appropriately resourced

• Commitment to DWP contact centres being amongst the best in the UK, sustaining accreditation to the CCA Global Standard.

Demands of the PCS contact centre dispute Within the review PCS has been seeking to resolve the long-standing dispute in CCD. The GEC objective has been to supplement the improvements achieved last year through the Interim Agreement. These were:

• An end to 7.24 scheduling, an end to real-time management and the abolition of real time management.

• Introduction of more non-telephony work to allow for job rotation and reasonable adjustments

• Give members a choice over where they work by allowing those who want to transfer out of CCD to be able to do so

• Genuine access to full flexible working, full access to all DWP terms and conditions such as Special leave, Annual leave and a supportive approach to sickness and well-being at work

• Respect at work including career development, promotion opportunities and good job design

• No erosion of service or privatisation of our work

Changes to DWP Structures Prior to the review it had been expected that Network Services would include all DWP telephony teams, as a result of the organisational changes to DWP that came in last October. However management decided to retain, at least for the time being, telephony operations within their home business (e.g. Pensions, DCS, etc) rather than moving them all into the new Network Services Directorate. As a result of this the

recommendations that have emerged from the review only apply to members in Contact Centre Services at this stage. Additional improvements secured: Attached to this briefing are the recommendations from the review. The additional improvements to members working conditions that have been achieved in the review are:

• Stress awareness training to be provided for line managers • A cross DWP approach to ensure alternative employment is

offered to staff, including within another arm of DWP, as a temporary or permanent reasonable adjustment.

• A consistent level of ’wait time’ of 11% should be delivered across the network wherever possible.

• Annual leave levels to be set between 18 to 25 %. (This is a cross DWP initiative)

• In day leave requests should be supported. • Further work to be done to review the use of mandatory text

for calls and end the insistence on using the exact wording in the script

• Only significant over, or under, achievement of Average Handling Times should be investigated. Tolerances around the margins of the average AHT level are to be expected and should result in no management action being taken.

• Performance of individuals to be viewed in the round taking account of quality as well as efficiency

• A further review of the role and responsibilities of team leaders to be conducted

• The actual number of staff on a team to not exceed 14. • Borrow resources from other operational areas at peak times • Commitment to improve employee relations.

The review has produced some additional improvements that supplement those already achieved through the interim agreement that PCS reached with CCD management last year. While this progress is welcome we have not yet been able to make progress in other key

areas, such as flexible working and a greater mix of processing and telephony work. Overall the outcome is disappointing. Flexible Working On flexible working, management concluded that the flexibilities offered to staff in Contact Centre Services are not out of line with the flexibilities on offer in other DWP telephony areas. As a result they have not been prepared to offer any additional improvements to flexible working over those that had previously been agreed in the interim agreement. Management have agreed to explore alternative approaches to scheduling and start and finish times and talks continue. It is extremely disappointing that the review has failed to produce improvements to flexi time as it has been clear that progress on flexible working was always a key element in resolving the long-standing contact centre dispute. Business Model The review has also avoided a key issue for the future. This is the issue of the DWP contact centre business model that completely separates processing work from telephony work. Management decided not to include this issue within the scope of this review. PCS believes this is a missed opportunity. Work on this issue will now be subsumed into the wider planning for the business model to support the introduction of Universal Credit and the Personal Independence Payment next year. Further Review of Network Services Management have recently decided to run a second review of DWP telephony. This review aims to enable DWP to standardise common processes and to streamline structures and responsibilities. The review will look at the similarities and differences across all DWP telephony operations. It will focus on underpinning technology, the use of Genysis, and performance management. This review is expected to last 3 months with continuing consultation with PCS.

The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group. Civil Service Performance Management The DWP decision to introduce the Civil Service Employee Policy (CSEP) for Performance Management has been reported to members and representatives in the March 2012 edition of PCS Voice. DWP People Performance Policy, Procedure and Advice for 2012-13 have been changed following consultation, but not agreement, with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS). No return to bad practices PCS has insisted that there must be no return to the bad practices of the PDS (Performance and Development System) which were abolished in 2009. Key differences achieved This briefing provides a report on the outcomes from consultation with DWP which indicates the key differences between People Performance for 2012-13 and both PDS and the CSEP. Shared expectations of performance The performance management process will assess individuals against shared expectations of performance for the achievement of objectives and competencies which will be agreed at the start of the performance year and explained to employees at the initial

performance discussion. (Procedures 2.1 & 5.3 and “How to Set Performance Expectations Consistently at the Start of the Year” guide.) This means that the performance of individuals will be assessed in “peer groups” but each employee’s evidence of performance will be assessed against standards set at the start of the performance year. This is not like the pure relative assessment process in PDS or CSEP. Distribution ranges Distribution ranges have been introduced but are qualified by the introduction of a procedural instruction that ratings will not be changed or forced simply to fit the distribution. (Procedure 9.3) Unlike PDS or CSEP there is no procedural requirement which insists that managers must meet the distribution ranges. The procedural requirements for consistency checking and validation also, unlike CSEP, have no requirement to meet the distribution. Consistency checking Countersigning managers will do a “light touch” consistency check of distribution ratings across the peer group and ensure the consideration of the employees’ performance is objective and consistent against known performance expectations. They will ensure one person’s evidence has not been over-or under-estimated compared to that of other employees doing similar work. Countersigning managers will also ensure that employees are not forced into a performance rating simply to meet the distribution. (Procedures 12.1–12.3) Validation meetings Following the countersigning managers “light touch consistency check” assessments for staff

in grades HEO to Grade 6 will be subject to a formal validation. Outcomes will be reviewed in relation to the distribution ranges but unlike PDS and CSEP there is no procedural requirement to meet the distribution. The Chair’s responsibilities include ensuring that:

• the performance ratings of employees are justified on the basis of achievement of objectives and demonstration of competencies in relation to known performance expectations for the peer group

• all decisions have been reasonable, fair and unbiased and non-discriminatory.

• employees are not forced into a performance rating simply to meet the distribution ranges

• the performance distribution outcome is explainable and the reasons recorded.

This process should provide outcomes that are transparent, justified and open to scrutiny. (Procedures 12.4 -12.6)

Regular performance discussions Regular performance discussions with employees at the start and during the year will ensure there are no surprises at the end of the year. Reviewing performance should not be seen as an annual process. (Procedures 7.1 – 7.5 and “How to hold regular performance discussions” guide) Mid-year review The manager and employee should discuss the self assessment and an indicative performance rating. This does not guarantee the final performance rating at the end of the year. However, regular discussions and consistency

checking during the year should ensure consistency at the end of the year. Where a ‘Must Improve’ rating is indicated, the manager must discuss with the employee the steps to be taken that should lead to an improvement in their rating. (Procedures 10.1- 10.8) Informal unsatisfactory procedures DWP has agreed not to introduce the CSEP for Unsatisfactory Performance and will retain current informal and formal procedures. Where performance remains at an unacceptable level the manager must follow the Unsatisfactory Performance Policy. This will start with the informal unsatisfactory performance procedure which has been retained from the pre-April 2012 version of People Performance but moved to the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures. Rating performance Performance must be evaluated against both the ‘What’ (delivery of objectives) and the ‘How’ (demonstration of behaviours, competencies and values) achieved by the employee against known performance expectations, with equal weighting between ‘What’ and ‘How’ and assessed on three final ratings: “Exceeded”; “Achieved” and “Must Improve”.(Procedure 9.1) The guided distribution ranges, Exceeded 20-25%, Achieved 65% and Must Improve 10% must not be used to predetermine performance ratings. The procedures for rating performance do not require managers to meet the guided distribution ranges but do insist that ratings will not be changed or forced simply to fit the distribution. (Procedure 9.3)

Right of appeal The right to raise a grievance and appeal under the normal Grievance and Appeal Procedures is recognised. (Procedures 13) DWP accepted, in response to PCS legal action at the High Court in 2004, that DWP employees have a right to raise a grievance and appeal

Right of appeal The right to raise a grievance and appeal under the normal Grievance and Appeal Procedures is recognised. (Procedures 13) DWP accepted, in response to PCS legal action at the High Court in 2004, that DWP employees have a right to raise a grievance and appeal.

The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group:

People Performance Changes for 2012-2013 Consultation with DTUS People Performance Policy, Procedure and Advice for 2012-13 have been changed following consultation, but not agreement, with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS). The changes will be introduced from 1st April 2012 but will have no impact on the assessment of performance levels for the current performance year 2011-12 which ends on 31st March 2012. What’s changing? DWP will make the revised policy, procedure and advice available on the DWP intranet on Monday 12th March 2012 and will publish a message to staff which will refer to the main changes: • How you do your job - displaying values, competencies and behaviours - will be as important

as achieving your objectives. • There will be a greater focus on standard setting across groups of employees carrying out

similar work. This is to ensure that performance expectations are applied consistently throughout the year and that nobody’s performance evidence has been over- or under-estimated compared to their colleagues.

• End-of year performance assessments for staff in grades AA to EO will be subject to a light

touch consistency check by countersigning managers. More rigorous validation checking will apply to assessments for grades HEO-G6.

Each employee’s performance will be marked as either “Exceeded”, “Achieved” or “Must Improve”, with more people expected to be awarded top and bottom performance marks in March 2013.

Mick’s King of Pop Quiz

Owwwwww! its me Mick, or Micko as they used to call me when I was younger. I was a big fan of Michael Jackson, or Jacko, hence the name Mick-Owww. Eeeee Hee!

The King of Pop will never be replaced, no one comes anywhere near to Michael’s standard, but here is a quiz about Michael and some of his songs.

Question 1 Your butt is mine, are the opening lyrics to which record by Michael. Was it:

a) Thriller b) Earth song c) Billie Jean d) BAD e) Smooth Criminal

Question 2 What was the name of Michael’s ranch? Was it

a) Newland b) Neverland c) Neverneverland d) Graceland e) Iceland

Question 3 Michael’s younger brother later joined the Jacksons but what was his name? Was it.

a) Jermaine b) Tito c) Jackie d) Marlon e) Randy

Question 4 What type of animal was Ben? Was it a?

a) A Dog b) Rat c) Cat d) Horse e) Pig

Question 5 Which of the following birds is not mentioned in the song Rockin Robin? Is it?

a) Raven b) Flamingo c) Owl d) Oriole e) Swallow

Question 6 Who played guitar on “Beat it” was it?

a) Randy Rhoads b) Jimmy Page c) John Bon Jovi d) Ritchie Blackmore e) Eddie Van Halen

Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I thought the lyrics of “Smooth Criminal” were ‘Jacqui are you OK?’, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than Friday 27th of May 2012.

The winner will receive a mystery prize. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Who’s Bad!? (I am). Micko

Babies are counting on you

Babies count on their caregivers for safety, love and care. Yet sadly, babies are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect. Ensuring the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable babies is everyone’s responsibility.

That’s why babies are one of the NSPCC’s priorities, and that’s why we need you to support our campaign (https://allbabiescount.nspcc.org.uk/what-you-can-do/pledge-your-support).

The scale of the challenge

Most parents want to do the best for their children. But some need more support than others. For families facing complex problems such as mental illness, domestic abuse or substance misuse, the challenges can be even greater. And for the first time, we understand the extent of the problem. It is estimated that:

• 109,000 babies in the UK have a parent who is a substance misuser • 144,000 babies in the UK have a parent with mental health problems • 39,000 babies in the UK have a parent who has experienced domestic violence

How you can help

By supporting our campaign you can help vulnerable families and protect babies. We know that the vast majority of parents are receptive to help during pregnancy and the first months of their child’s life. We also know that directing support where it’s needed most, at the earliest opportunity, delivers real results: preventing abuse, stopping neglect, and helping an entire generation.

Better and earlier support for new parents

The NSPCC’s All babies count report (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/all-babies-count_wda85661.html) shows that over 198,000 babies in the UK (one in four) are at high risk because they are born into homes with domestic violence, mental health problems, or drink and drug dependency. These families can face significant risks and we can all do more to help. Take a look at our research and key findings on the issues facing vulnerable babies.

Continued…

We have a duty to protect

The NSPCC is determined to get help to babies who need it. That’s why we are delivering innovative programmes and calling for the UK government to take action. Research shows it is possible to prevent abuse and neglect, and promote healthy family life and relationships. The key is getting the right support to families before problems have had a chance to build up. There is support out there, but provision is patchy and many parents still struggle to cope.

We can all do more to help and pledging your support for the All babies count campaign is just the start.

Pioneering support for parents

Many of our new services are based on pioneering programmes from around the world that are showing dramatic results. Our work preventing non-accidental head injuries in babies is inspired by a project in the US, which saw a 46 per cent decrease in abusive head traumas. Our other services provide intensive support and education, and set the template for positive parenting.

We’re excited about this work and keen to share knowledge with other organisations and professionals. Do you work with children? You can find a wealth of information and practical advice on delivering the best service for babies on the NSPCC website (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/all-babies-count_wda85661.html).

Help for anyone concerned about a baby

We’re making sure people know about the NSPCC Helpline, so that anyone concerned about a baby can get help, at any time of day or night. We’re making sure people can spot the early warning signs of abuse and neglect and know how to contact the NSPCC Helpline.

Making sure every baby is protected

The scale of the problem is such that we can’t keep babies safe on our own. That is why we’re calling on everyone – the public, professionals and governments – to ensure that all babies count. Find out more about our calls on UK governments (http://allbabiescount.nspcc.org.uk/what-you-can-do/in-your-region/england) and how you can help babies by pledging your support.

Worried about a child?

You may be their only hope. Call the NSPCC Helpline now on 0808 800 5000

Information on these pages taken from the NSPCC website.

Olympic merchandise agreement starts to deliver A landmark workers' rights agreement between the TUC and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) has already started to deliver. The agreement announced last week sets out to improve the rights of workers making Olympic souvenirs and other goods. A key demand of the Playfair campaigners, a coalition that includes TUC and other workers' rights groups, was public disclosure of locations of factories producing Olympics related merchandise. Just one day after the agreement was signed, LOCOG published a list of their licensees and suppliers. This included details of the locations worldwide where production is taking place. Owen Tudor, head of the TUC's international department, said the list 'covers 72 per cent of the production of goods for the London 2012, and the Playfair campaign hopes that all the other licensees and suppliers will publish their locations shortly.' Writing in the TUC's Stronger Unions blog, he added 'even more important, it is now up to trade unions to use the information to make sure that workers in the Olympic supply chains are treated better.'

Companies listed by LOCOG are: Adidas (who disclosed their factories in June 2011); Golden Bear Toys; Haymarket Publishing; Honav; Hornby Hobbies Ltd; Innovative Sports Limited; Merrythought; Samlerhuset; The Royal Mail; The Royal Mint; and WWRD. Most of the factory locations are in China and the UK, 'but there are also workplaces in Bangladesh, Germany, Ireland, Slovenia and Thailand,' commented Owen Tudor. He said 'the TUC has alerted sister trade union movements in those countries to the list, as well as the relevant Global Union Federations covering ceramics, glassware, textiles and toys.' Surge in older workers doing unpaid overtime The proportion of employees in their late 50s and early 60s working unpaid overtime has increased sharply in the last decade - despite a fall in unpaid hours for the rest of the workforce. A new TUC analysis of official figures, published recently to mark Work Your Proper Hours Day on 24 February, shows that over the last decade the number of workers doing unpaid overtime has increased by just 96,000. Given the growing size of the working population, this means that the likelihood of doing unpaid overtime has fallen by 0.2 per cent. However, the analysis reveals sharp age disparities. The proportion of workers in their early 20s doing unpaid overtime has fallen by 36 per cent in the last decade, while the likelihood of workers in their early 60s doing unpaid overtime has increased by 45 per cent. The likelihood of doing unpaid overtime increases the longer someone has been in their job. Workers who have been in the same post for at least ten years are twice as likely to work unpaid overtime (25 per cent) as those who have been working for less than a year (12.5 per cent). Workers in their late 30s are still the most likely to work unpaid overtime, with over one in four employees in this age bracket (26.6 per cent) regularly putting in extra hours for free. Across the UK around one in five workers (5.3 million people) put in an average of 7.2 hours of unpaid overtime

per week last year, worth around £5,300 a year per person - and a record £29.2 billion to the economy. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Over the last decade, more people are working well into their 60s - and many of them are putting in extra unpaid hours too.' He added: 'Whilst most people have no objection to putting in some extra hours to help their employer through a busy period, an entrenched long hours culture causes stress, health problems and lower morale.' There are other health and safety implications of longer working weeks and longer working lives. For example, the total exposure years of workers to hazardous chemicals increases as we work longer hours and more years, creating the possibility of an upturn in related conditions like occupational cancer. Worker involvement saves lives and money There are substantial business benefits from worker involvement in health and safety, Prospect's Sarah Page has told an audience of industry figures. Page, the national health and safety officer with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors' union, told the 'Health and Safety South' event in Sandown Park the benefits of involving the workforce in health and safety would be visible in the balance book as well as the accident book. 'Evidence shows that workplaces where workers have a say in decisions that affect their health and safety are safer and healthier,' she said, adding HSE itself recognised this. She also cited practical examples where Prospect and management had worked together and where this collaborative approach had made a difference. These included: promoting the role of health and safety reps in Babcock Marine at Rosyth, Scotland; working with BT on mental health and other issues; 'building consensus' during restructuring at Defra's Natural England; instilling 'a culture of dialogue' at the Magnox reactor sites in Wylfa and Anglesey in Wales; and involving Prospect in the Powering Improvement initiative run by the Energy Networks Association.

Mick and Grant’s Love quiz Mickeypie and Grantypops back with the answers to our quiz about matters of the heart: Answer 1: Rihanna found Love in 2011 in a hopeless place

Answer 2: “Close to you” was by the Carpenters Answer 3: St Mirren is the football team who used to play at Love Street in Paisley. Answer 4: Ian McShane starred in the series Lovejoy from 1986 to 1994

Answer 5: “What’s love got to do with it” is a biographical film about Tina Turner Answer 6: The original strap-line was “All because the lady loves Milk Tray” The winner who received a mystery prize of chocs was Lesley Tague from Warbreck. Well done Little Micks’ Pop quiz Yes it’s the Little Micks back with the answers to the quiz, what do you mean you haven’t heard much of us since we won the X Factor. Here are the poptastic answers: Answer 1: Little Mix won the X Factor in 2011, and Marcus Collins was the runner up

Answer 2: JLS had a hit with “She makes me wanna” in 2011. Answer 3: Rihanna asked “What’s my Name?” in the 2010 hit. Answer 4: Jessie J had a number one hit Price Tag in 2010

Answer 5: Lady Gaga was on the “Edge of Glory” in 2011. Answer 6: Katy Perry’s hit single in 2010 was a “Fire Work”. The winner who received a mystery prize of chocs was Cathy Griffiths from Norcross. Well done. Mick’s in a Pickle Quick quiz Mick here, did you pick which one I was, yes I was the gherkin in the middle of the Pickle Jar. You didn’t confuse me with those other wallys did you? The winner who put an X on me, the nearest to centre of my face was Katie Bainbridge from Norcross. Well done the chocs are on their way along with a special surprise. Mick

Q U I Z

R E S U L T S Mick was the one

stuck in the middle!

Mickeypie & Grantypops

Little Micks

The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group. DWP management have imposed a change to the guidance on desk sharing as detailed below: "There is no reason why staff with modifications to their workstations should be automatically excluded. Managers should work with the individual members of staff to assess if they and/or their workstation can be part of a formal desk sharing arrangement. They should take into account the individuals disability, the type of modifications and whether these can be used at other desks without detriment to the individual, and whether the modification can be used by others, e.g. if a workstation has a modified keyboard would someone other than the individual it was provided for be able to easily use it. If it is considered that there will be a detriment to the individual, then they must not be included in any desk sharing." Before this change was introduced H&S reps were regularly getting feedback from members with individual adjustments to their workstation that their chair, keyboard, mouse, etc., had been changed from how it was set up and they now had problems with their workstation. We are aware that in some circumstances specialist equipment has simply disappeared never to be seen again. Whilst the guidance is clear that those members of staff with adjustments should be consulted by managers we are concerned that this consultation could be overlooked or that members could be put under pressure to agree unsatisfactory changes. Our major concern is that managers have to decide whether there will be a detriment to the individual. We do not believe that it is fair to ask managers to make this decision. DWP does not train it's managers adequately enough to assess the potential harm to an individual if workplace adjustments are altered. Where managers decide to implement this new guidance members should raise this with their local Health and Safety representative at the earliest opportunity to ensure the reasonable adjustments will not be moved, or amended in any way. There should also be an assurance

that individual workstations MUST be left EXACTLY how it was set up PRIOR TO USE. Existing guidance states that: "Staff who are required to use more than one workstation (for example flexible working arrangements) must complete a DSE Workstation Risk Assessment for the desk they use most frequently. This must be repeated at least every three years. They must have sufficient knowledge of how to adjust their workstation to achieve ergonomically correct seating and posture, and should be encouraged to self assess and make the necessary adjustments each time they change workstations (this does not necessitate completion of a new DSE risk assessment form at each change). If any problems are identified, action should be taken to request a full risk assessment. See DSE Workstation training and Risk Assessment guidance (Internal DWP link). Where desk sharing is introduced, it is preferable that staff share team desks, which can allow a greater level of control over the number of changes which each user must make to achieve an ergonomically correct working position." PCS advises that if members are asked to use an adjusted workstation they should automatically complete a DSE Workstation Risk Assessment for that desk. It is important to ensure that modifications to a standard desk set-up are evaluated against individual users. For example, a desk that is on risers may appear to be fine for all staff, however this can greatly affect the ergonomics of the user and could potentially cause health issues in the future. Staff should not physically change the set up of ANY workstation that has Reasonable Adjustments in situ.

Grant’s Easter Eggstravaganza quiz I appear to, once again, have been turned into a rabbit, this just isn’t (b)unny any more. Do I look like the Easter Bunny in this get up? No I don’t. So here are the questions about Easter type things. Has anyone seen my carrot? Question 1 What is the name of the rabbit in the 1950 film, a rabbit that only James Stewart’s character could see? Was it a) Brian b) Hardy c) Grant d) Harvey e) Harwood

Question 2 Who wrote the book Masquerade about a jewelled golden hare? Was it Kit? a) Collins b) Simmons c) Cat d) Jones e) Williams Question 3 Which “Lamb” is best known for playing one of the greatest villains of British soap: Archie Mitchell in the BBC television soap East Enders. Was it? a) Harry b) Larry c) Barry d) Garry e) Henry Question 4 Lamb Chop was a glove puppet that appeared on TV with which “Lewis” during the 1960’s? a) Shari b) Leona c) Harry d) Larry e) Juliet

Question 5 Which Bob appeared in the film the Long Good Friday? Was it? Bob: a) Dylan b) Marley c) Hoskins d) The Builder e) Monkhouse Question 6 This year is a leap year, so on what day of the week did Easter Sunday fall this year? a) Monday b) Sunday c) Friday d) Saturday e) Thursday Please send your answers together with your name and details to Jacqui “I have had a few rabbits as pets, but never in a pie, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley Room 7233 Norcross to arrive no later than Friday 27th of May 2012. The winner will receive a mystery prize. Please remember that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.

Grant