Congratulations

It is our understanding that SPVA management believe the partnership with EDS is what has made JPA such a blistering success.

And now for the news…

edit: image removed due to concern over potential copyright

Staff Perception Survey

Question 1

Do you consider yourself to be;

a.) Very happy at work
b.) Inordinately happy at work
c.) Over the moon.

Question 2

Do you feel that the pay deal was

a:) Very fair.
b:) More than enough
c:) I’d work for nothing

Question 3

How secure do you feel your job is?

a:) Very
b:) Very very
c:) EDS.

Question 4

The Agency Management Board is

a:) Balanced and representative of all areas of SPVA
b:) Very balanced and representative of all areas of SPVA
c:) Who?
d:) EDS

COMING SOON - Dr. Bolton's 'THE LAST WORD'

Unedited, unfettered and entirely frank.
.
.

Watch this space..........

I Told You I Was ILL

Sickness rates for SPVA are now substantially higher than they were 12 months ago within VA. When we last received figures (prior to the People Program) the average days sick per member of staff in ex-VA was less than 10. Now under SPVA the average is running at about 17. What we don’t know, as we no longer received the details, is whether the increase is down high rates on the ‘AFPAA’ side of the organisation, the ex-VA side or a mixture of both.

What is definitely a concern is that the morale of the workforce in ex-VA side is extremely low, uncertainty is high and insecurity is high. In certain areas there is a distinct feeling of alienation of ex-VA from the rest of SPVA and you only need to look at the constitution of the management board where there are around 10 members, none of whom are from old ex-VA. At a higher level ex-VA seems to be carrying the can financially for failures elsewhere in SPVA. Closer to home staff at Norcross have received some heavy weight criticism concerning high profile awards made under AFCS. To our knowledge these award were correctly made and any shortfalls in them related entirely to award limits set by ministers.

If you put all these things together you get an unhappy workforce that is more prone to sickness. Its not rocket science is it?

NB Whilst we have concentrated on ex-VA, as this is the remit of our Branch. However, we are aware of the same morale issues in ex-AFPAA due to a fundamental need amongst Management to try and close a perfectly viable site.

(Title courtesy of Spike Milligan)

A Welcome Victory

Recently we discovered that the Dept. wished to remove the right that we have to apply for Term Time Working, and also to force those on such contracts back to more standard contracts. They suggested that Unpaid Leave should be taken, a suggestion problematic for many reasons, not least because annualised pay is part of the Term Time Working scheme.

Term Time Working was a legacy term and condition of service from when we moved Dept.’s and one might wonder why they wanted to remove a best practice in the field of family friendly policies. It seems that our pay computer cannot handle the working pattern and – despite the fact that there was a manual workaround in place – it really was a case of “Computer says ‘no!’”

Last week we got word, from PCS Group, that these plans have been dropped and today it was confirmed to me that a member of staff who had applied for the scheme have had their application accepted. It has to be said that our HR business partners were putting pressure on the centre, kudos and applause to them. The Branch had written to anyone and everyone with any influence and leverage. Our thanks to the Group officers who got involved in this on our behalf.

Incidentally, we did write to a local MP about this issue but, to date, have had no reply. One can only give the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were plugging away, behind the scenes, on behalf of their constituents, and that the reason we have had no reply is because the MP is so busy fighting our corner.

Illustrative picture from the TV show Little Britain shows David Walliams as Carol Beer. I would have linked to Mr Walliams’ website but our work computers block it as a “celebrity site” – another example of “Computer says ‘No!’”

EDS – the tirade begins

At some point I am going to post – all things being fair – the full force of my thoughts on EDS and their involvement in our Agency.

This centres around the fact that our Management believe they have a partnership with a company that has been involved in many of the high profile Government outsourcing fiascos (Passport Agency computers, CSA computers and JPA*). I believe that all Public Sector work must, sensibly, be done by the Public Sector.

However much they say we are partners, we are not – not really. After all EDS operate solely for a financial profit and not out of a sense of benevolence towards our society and a moral duty to ensure the continuance of a Welfare State – one might wonder what selling services for profit makes the organisation? It is strange that the AFPAA partnership with EDS continues and yet the VA partnership with PCS (an all together benevolent partnership) ended post merger.

For now let me just say that the idea that EDS should have any involvement in the AFCS scheme is abhorrent and the Branch thanks the Group Secretary for his help and diligence in this matter. More news on this as we get it.

We want AFCS to succeed and fully support the idea that staff resources should be sought from within the Civil Service.

*I have been informed, incidentally, that the Partnership with EDS has made JPA the success it is. One questions exactly what the criteria of success is and exactly where certain budgetary concerns developed?

** The Branch is against EDS involvement in the Public Sector generally, but maintains the need for the staff to be supported. In many areas of EDS, PCS are the Union of choice and we offer solidarity to our colleagues in the Commercial Sector. However, the best support we could offer those members is re-nationalisation.

SHEF Committee Crisis

SHEF – safety, health, environment and fire. Why would there be a crisis re the committee? After all, the committees are strongly regulated in law.

VA had a really good, legally compliant SHEF committee.

AFPAA’s committee was in breach of legislation, in my opinion.

The two organisations merged but the management group never brought the committees to the merger discussion table.

Suddenly the AFPAA committee becomes an overarching committee, and starts sending training and risk assessment edicts to Norcross and VWS – without consultation or reference to our committee. We said no, we pointed out that there had been no consultation, we pointed out that the terms of reference were (in our opinion) in breach of UK legislation.

We took it to Whitley and the CE said to his people “sort it, make sure the Union are happy.” (paraphrase)

Eventually, nothing having been done for some time, it was passed to the Norcross ExO to sort. A constitution was developed very quickly, I looked at it. We amended it. Everyone was happy… or so we thought.

A higher manager ripped it up (metaphorically).

So we are without an agreed overarching committee. What to do… what to do? Part of me wants to go straight to the HSE and ask for an improvement notice, but I am not unreasonable. We will discuss this at the next Whitley and if level heads do not prevail then I’ll go to the HSE.

Incidentally, our comrades in the ex-AFPAA PCS are being brilliant and are boycotting the ex-AFPAA committee until such time as this is sorted. Solidarity and working as one Agency – if we agreed with the principle, then perhaps we should get a bonus*…


*PCS policy opposes bonus payments and believes that all staff should be paid the rate for the job - something most of us do not get.

N.B. The alleged utterance of phrases such as “we did it in AFPAA” and “I’ll not be dictated to by the Union” have not been substantiated

ACS cars – the current position

Members may be interested to know the current position with ACS cars.

Management have put forward a paper to PCS to scrap the scheme.

The PCS response has been as follows:

• This is not a consultation but a negotiation and should be treated as such. We have offered evidence under employment law and VA’s own documents that this is the case.



• We have pointed out that the costing figures are not provided and we do not believe that the unsubstantiated savings suggested truthfully add up. The costs and savings implied just do not make sense.



• We have looked at the equality aspects.

This is not all – the PCS response was some 5 pages in length – but this blog is not the place to go into everything.

The response was sent to the CSD director on 22.12.07 and IR have confirmed it was received and was in time with the deadlines. The suggestion that the consultation period has lapsed is erroneous. IR have looked into it and confirmed that the message was misinterpreted by the manager enquiring.

PCS have compiled a number of personal cases on this issue and are looking at timing their submission so as to be most effective.