So, we discovered that the Staff questionnaire was to go live and yet, despite assurance from the Chief Executive, we were not consulted. We were told that consultation is “a learning curve” for our new overlords. Think about it for a second… Consultation is a primary part of the Department’s rules… and it’s a learning curve?!?
Anyway, after some complaining we were given a consultation of 5 days… rules state 30.
The law of consultation states that a full formal response to any point must be given if it is not accepted. I would actually quote rule here but the legacy IR intranet page has mysteriously vanished and the MoD one is so well hidden (at least on the off line version) that it just can’t be found. None the less that is the rule and it should be issued before “go live”. We have had no formal response… simply a call to say some of our points have been adopted… Having got the metaphoric microscope out, having got the new version of the questionnaire from a source other than the team involved, I actually found these “changes”…
We raised the issue of outsourcing the questionnaire when VA had an in-house team, without consultation, because EDS wanted it. We have had no response.
We raised the posters on site. We pointed out that one particularly was offensive and that the in-house design team had not been utilised. We have had no response.
We raised the fact that we have not been told the mechanism for accessing this without it recording your details (though there is an anonymity disclaimer) and that the specific question regarding time in the Agency can, when cross referenced, allow some individuals to be identified. We have had no response.
We asked that no response be edited out without consultation as we do not trust the judgement call system they mention on whether something is derogatory. We have been ignored.
With the questions:
Anyway, after some complaining we were given a consultation of 5 days… rules state 30.
The law of consultation states that a full formal response to any point must be given if it is not accepted. I would actually quote rule here but the legacy IR intranet page has mysteriously vanished and the MoD one is so well hidden (at least on the off line version) that it just can’t be found. None the less that is the rule and it should be issued before “go live”. We have had no formal response… simply a call to say some of our points have been adopted… Having got the metaphoric microscope out, having got the new version of the questionnaire from a source other than the team involved, I actually found these “changes”…
We raised the issue of outsourcing the questionnaire when VA had an in-house team, without consultation, because EDS wanted it. We have had no response.
We raised the posters on site. We pointed out that one particularly was offensive and that the in-house design team had not been utilised. We have had no response.
We raised the fact that we have not been told the mechanism for accessing this without it recording your details (though there is an anonymity disclaimer) and that the specific question regarding time in the Agency can, when cross referenced, allow some individuals to be identified. We have had no response.
We asked that no response be edited out without consultation as we do not trust the judgement call system they mention on whether something is derogatory. We have been ignored.
With the questions:
*(note that on the doi version, the live numbering has been changed. This numbering is based on the version we were issued with. Sorry if it makes little sense, as you will not be able to cross reference the numbering, but the following serves to illustrate)
We asked for Question 1E to be removed. It is still there.
We asked for Question 2A to be split into two questions, re management and staff. It has not been changed.
We asked for a change of wording to question 3G. Our suggestion was ignored.
We asked for a change of wording to Question 4C. Our suggestion was ignored.
We asked for a change of wording to Question 4E. Our suggestion was adopted (1).
We asked that an additional question was added in the question 10 range with regard merger and business impact. This was not adopted.
We asked that a change was made to the responses for question 10E. This was partially done (1.5).
We also asked, with regard question 10E that an additional question was asked to identify types of discrimination. Our suggestion was ignored, however an additional question was added that could be seen as a “blame the individual for not doing anything” question.
We asked that the wording of Question 11B be rewritten in plain English rather than management doublespeak. Our suggestion was ignored.
On Question 11C, we asked for clarification of exactly which goal they were referring to. We received no response.
Finally we asked for a change of wording to Question 13a, from people to management in a question in a management style section. Our suggestion was ignored.
Now let us be clear and repeat that consultation is not completed until we have been answered (which may not be the end of consultation in itself). There has been mention of speaking before a formal response is given but it has already gone live. Barn doors and bolting horses spring to mind. Despite the timeframes we got our paper to management that allowed them 2 more days to answer us (and remember the short, against policy timescales were impossed by MS). They have only adopted 1.5 changes and yet the damn thing has gone live.
What should you do?
We do encourage you to fill in the questionnaire. It is flawed, perhaps fatally so, but we think your voice should be heard and we hope that it won’t be filed and ignored as it was in a previous Agency for all intents and purposes. We have asked for consultation on remedial work falling out of the questionnaire – we have had no response but this entire issue is going to be a major point of discussion with CE at the next Whitley.
If you are worried that you can be identified by filling in the “how long have you worked here” question, cross referenced with the other identifying markers we would suggest that you refuse to fill that specific question in – though as we haven’t had real consultation we don’t know if you can ignore a question.
We asked for Question 1E to be removed. It is still there.
We asked for Question 2A to be split into two questions, re management and staff. It has not been changed.
We asked for a change of wording to question 3G. Our suggestion was ignored.We asked for a change of wording to Question 4C. Our suggestion was ignored.
We asked for a change of wording to Question 4E. Our suggestion was adopted (1).
We asked that an additional question was added in the question 10 range with regard merger and business impact. This was not adopted.
We asked that a change was made to the responses for question 10E. This was partially done (1.5).
We also asked, with regard question 10E that an additional question was asked to identify types of discrimination. Our suggestion was ignored, however an additional question was added that could be seen as a “blame the individual for not doing anything” question.
We asked that the wording of Question 11B be rewritten in plain English rather than management doublespeak. Our suggestion was ignored.
On Question 11C, we asked for clarification of exactly which goal they were referring to. We received no response.
Finally we asked for a change of wording to Question 13a, from people to management in a question in a management style section. Our suggestion was ignored.
Now let us be clear and repeat that consultation is not completed until we have been answered (which may not be the end of consultation in itself). There has been mention of speaking before a formal response is given but it has already gone live. Barn doors and bolting horses spring to mind. Despite the timeframes we got our paper to management that allowed them 2 more days to answer us (and remember the short, against policy timescales were impossed by MS). They have only adopted 1.5 changes and yet the damn thing has gone live.What should you do?
We do encourage you to fill in the questionnaire. It is flawed, perhaps fatally so, but we think your voice should be heard and we hope that it won’t be filed and ignored as it was in a previous Agency for all intents and purposes. We have asked for consultation on remedial work falling out of the questionnaire – we have had no response but this entire issue is going to be a major point of discussion with CE at the next Whitley.
If you are worried that you can be identified by filling in the “how long have you worked here” question, cross referenced with the other identifying markers we would suggest that you refuse to fill that specific question in – though as we haven’t had real consultation we don’t know if you can ignore a question.
