Council fails to produce agreed feasibility report on cost of LLW
Tory Council Leader describes care workers and trade unionists as “a Labour mob”
Barnet’s Conservative councillors have rejected a Labour Group motion for former Fremantle care workers to be paid at least the London’s Living Wage of £10.75 an hour – the level of pay identified as the minimum needed to cover the cost of essentials when living in London.
Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Barry Rawlings, put forward the motion at last night’s Policy & Resources Committee (6 Jan) after the Conservative Council failed to produce a feasibility study setting out the cost of paying the care workers London’s Living Wage. There was cross-party agreement at the last committee (3 Oct) to bring the feasibility study to last night’s meeting.
Care workers attending the Policy & Resources meeting yesterday reacted with dismay to Council claims that they couldn’t produce the report because it was too complicated to calculate the cost in the last 3 months. Conservative Leader of the Council, Dan Thomas responded by branding them “a Labour mob”.
The care workers were transferred to The Barnet Group (TBG) – a wholly owned subsidiary of Barnet Council – under TUPE rules after the Fremantle Trust handed over the running of its three Barnet care homes to TBG in April last year.
Since then, the care workers, their trade union – Barnet Unison – and Labour councillors have been campaigning for them to be paid at least London’s Living Wage, which is the policy of The Barnet Group. All other Barnet Group staff are paid at least London’s Living Wage, including other care workers already employed by them.
Leader of the Barnet Labour Group, Cllr Barry Rawlings said: “It is the moral duty of the Council to ensure that all its staff – including those working in The Barnet Group and in contracted-out services – are paid at least the minimum to be able to cover the basic essentials of living in London.
“It is the Council’s policy to pay directly employed staff at least London’s Living Wage and it is also The Barnet Group’s policy, so they really need to find the funding to do this straight away.
“We cannot condone the Council and The Barnet Group paying poverty wages; and there cannot be a two-tiered workforce where those doing work of equivalent value are on unequal pay.
“It was shameful that the Conservatives refused to support paying London’s Living Wage to those who do some of the most sensitive work to support our most vulnerable residents.
“The Council have said they will come up with the feasibility figures at some point in the future, but will probably do nothing until July. My concern is that they will wait until the protected TUPE period is over and then seek to outsource the care workers again.
“The Labour Group will oppose any further outsourcing of care workers, and continue to press the case for all directly employed and contracted out staff to be paid at least London’s Living Wage.”
Over the past decade one thing Barnet
UNISON is in agreement with Barnet Council is that the London Living
Wage is the lowest rate of pay for its staff and those working on
Within the Barnet Group the
minimum rate of pay for staff in Barnet Homes, TBG Flex (The Barnet
Group Flex) and Your Choice Barnet is the London Living Wage – including
posts which become vacant within the ex-Fremantle homes.
After a settling in period for the TUPE
Fremantle staff Barnet UNISON raised in discussions with the employer
the issue of paying these staff the London Living Wage as the lowest
level of pay. We believe these staff should be treated no differently to
other staff working for Barnet Council or on its outsourced contracts.
Barnet UNISON notes the decision
regarding a discussion about implementing the London Living Wage for
Fremantle TUPE transferred staff to Your Choice Barnet at the Policy and
Resources Committee 3rd October 2019 is recorded in the draft minutes as:
“Following discussion on the London
Living Wage for Fremantle staff who had been TUPE transferred to Your
Choice Barnet the Chairman agreed to an item on the feasibility being
brought back to the next Committee. This would be included in the
Business Planning report”
In response to this request from
Councillors the Business Planning Report dedicates a mere 2 paragraphs
which is listed under “Risks to the MTFS”
Fremantle Care workers (London Living Wage):
Former Fremantle staff were TUPE transferred to YCB in July 2018 under
the agreement that terms and conditions would be protected for 1 year.
Some former Fremantle care workers that have been transferred to the
Barnet Group may be being paid less than the London Living Wage (£10.75
per hour (as at Nov 2019)). The Barnet Group policy is to pay all its
workers at least the London Living Wage, subject to affordability, and a
HR process is now required to review any changes to terms and
conditions which will need to be considered.
Any decision about changes to terms
and conditions will need to be considered in the context of the overall
pay and reward strategy for the Barnet Group, employment policies and
legislation, the wider social care market and the council’s procurement
rules. It is not yet possible to quantify the level of risk associated
as it is too early to form a conclusion about the application of the
LLW to TUPE staff. However, officers in the Barnet Group supported by
council colleagues where necessary will be working on this over the
coming months and can provide further update to the committee in the
These two paragraphs responding to the
Committee’s request in no way reflects the response Barnet UNISON or the
care workers were expecting. We had expected a detailed report
detailing the cost implications for implementing the London Living Wage.
Instead this response kicks the question into the long grass.
This is absurd as all new
vacancies in the ex-Fremantle homes are advertised as paying the London
Living Wage as a minimum. These posts are open to existing Fremantle
staff to apply for those posts. This means that incrementally at least
some of these staff working in these homes will be all be employed on
the London Living Wage. This fact is not even listed in the 2 paragraphs
written by the officers. This means this risk is already a reality and
yet it is not mentioned or evaluated. No turnover rates are mentioned.
Is it ironic that a credible option for the ex-Fremantle staff to en
masse resign from their posts and then to reapply for posts in the new
homes which would have to be offered at the London Living Wage?
The report in no way reflects the request
made of the Committee to the officers. A “feasibility” was requested
not the “risks”. Furthermore the Councillors are asked to believe that
the officers are incapable of quantifying the “level of risk” associated
with “the application of the LLW to TUPE staff.”
Barnet UNISON can be of assistance to the
officers and councillors in understanding some of the implications by
revealing the inaccuracy of the sentence: “Some former Fremantle care workers […] may be being paid less than the London Living Wage”. (Our italics)
TUPE information from Fremantle in May/ June 2019 revealed that just under 300 staff were TUPE transferred. Of these, according to the figures given for the job titles and the rates of pay quoted for those job titles, some two thirds were listed as being paid below the London Living Wage. In total these were 222 staff. The largest group are the care workers which total some 143 workers and are nearly half of the ex-Fremantle workforce.
Care work is a physically demanding role
as well as an emotionally demanding role. Yet according to the TUPE
transfer information 161 members of staff are aged 55 years and over and of these 40 are aged 66 years and over. By contrast the numbers of staff aged under 40 years are 76.
There is a risk in not paying the London Living Wage as this report demonstrates:
In the Care industry there is a
national turnover rate of 38% for those working less than one year in
the field (p.13). It shows that those who are paid more are less likely
to leave their roles.
“Turnover at regulated services
that were rated overall as either ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’, turnover was
found to be lower (29.5%) than those rated as ‘requires improvement’ or
‘inadequate’ (32.2%). This trend remained consistent across
each Key Line of Enquiry (KLOE) with an average difference of 2.7%. The
largest difference in turnover was shown for the ‘Safe’ KLOE which had
3.4% lower turnover at providers rated positively.” (p.118)
Continuity is an important factor in
delivering quality care and support to our most vulnerable residents.
There are associated costs in constantly recruiting and inducting new
members of staff. These can result in reputational and safeguarding
Barnet UNISON strives to work with both
the Council and quasi outsourced employers, such as the Barnet Group, in
continuing to promote harmonious industrial relations and to provide a
high level of service for our customers. This may, potentially, be put
in jeopardy if the decision is not to value monetarily the important
role that care workers perform.
These factors should be of importance to
this Committee and to Councillors in general and should be taken more
seriously than the response to the request from Council officer’s shows.
UNION RMT has released a full list of London Overground’s plans to cut
hours at 45 stations to the bare minimum and close the ticket offices
altogether at Brondesbury, White
Hart Lane and West Hampstead.
The revelations of the scale of the planned cutbacks comes on the eve of
the union holding a day of action as part of a fresh campaign to fight
the closures. Last year, London Overground planned to close 51 ticket
offices on the network. However, RMT launched
a campaign and thousands of London Overground passengers opposed the
closures leading to the Mayor intervening and promising to keep the
Ticket offices open.
The RMT is currently campaigning against planned cuts to ticket office opening hours across the London Overground network.
year, the operator of London Overground, Arriva Rail London (owned by
the German State Railways) planned to close 51 ticket offices on the
network. Because of the level of opposition from passengers (there were
around 6000 responses opposing the proposals), the Mayor of London
announced in April 2019 he would halt the closures.
London Overground is now planning to cut ticket office opening hours
across the network to the bare minimum – effectively achieving its
original goal by stealth. These plans amount to closures in all but name
– many stations are facing cuts of 80% or more compared to their
If these cuts go ahead, the RMT firmly believes that:
Stations will become less safe, secure and accessible
Passengers will not be able to access all ticket types and services at machines
Many people, including disabled and elderly passengers, would struggle to purchase tickets and get advice and assistance at the station
It will be easier for London Overground to close more ticket offices in the future.
The RMT has urged the Mayor to use his powers to intervene and halt these damaging cuts, but to date, this has not happened.
the RMT has convened a protest at which we will be calling for the
Mayor, TfL and London Overground to halt these proposals.
The Demonstration is taking place at9am on Wednesday 20th November, outside City Hall, London, SE1 2AA.
RMT has already held a number of successful action days at London
Overground stations, distributing postcards for passengers to send to
the Mayor, opposing the cuts.
are grateful for the support already given to the campaign by a number
of Trades Councils and anything further you could do to support the
campaign and/or the demonstration would be much appreciated.
If you are able to distribute leaflets and postcards locally, please email Sophie Ward (email@example.com) and we will arrange for these to be sent to you.
It is TUC policy to ‘stop and scrap’ Universal Credit. The
implementation of the policy, alongside the cap on the up-rating of
welfare benefits, has been shown to be causing immense hardship, and has
been proven to be a substantial cause of the huge growth in the
dependency of vulnerable people on foodbanks, and of evictions.
Last week the Constitution and General Purposes Committee proposed significant changes to the public participation rules. Currently, up to 30 minutes is set aside at the start of each committee meeting for public comments and questions. You have to submit the questions by 10am 3 working days in advance of the committee meeting and you also have to specify which agenda item on which you wish to make a public comment. At the meeting the resident gets 3 minutes to make their public comment and they can then be questioned by committee members. Questions are taken in strict rotation so everyone who has asked a question gets a chance to ask a supplementary question. Even if the questioners do not get the chance to ask a supplementary question there is a written response to their original question. This provides a useful audit trail when matters arise in the future.
Last week all those rules were changed. Following ratification at the forthcoming full council meeting on 30 July public participation will be dramatically reduced. The Council’s proposals are as follows:
Questions and comments should be amalgamated. The number of words for each question/comment should be limited at 100 and must be submitted in writing by 10am 3 working days in advance of the committee meeting. Residents may raise one question/comment on an agenda item. The question/comment must relate to the substantive matter to be determined by the committee. No more than two questions from residents will be allowed per agenda item taken in the order of receipt by the Governance Service. These changes means the public will no longer be able to address the committee in person and councillors will not be able to ask the member of public about their comment. When reports run to many pages, summarising a single question or comment in 100 words will severely restrict what people can say. Residents will only be able to make one comment or one question on an agenda item but if more than two residents ask a question or make a comment on an agenda item, no other questions or comments will be accepted. Barnet say this is about saving money and giving more opportunities to residents. It will do neither especially, if residents are forced to submit multiple FOI requests to get important answers. It seems clear that Barnet do not like residents scrutinising decisions such as the Council’s £22.9 million loan to Saracens Rugby to build a new stand at their stadium or asking questions about the £2 million fraud carried out by a Capita employee which went undiscovered for more than a year. Capita’s performance in areas such as Highways and Pensions Administration have been dismal but public scrutiny of their performance and why they are being allowed to continue to provide such a poor service will now be all but eliminated. The Council are also making major cuts to services such as libraries and are changing the rules to force disabled people who receive in-home care packages to move into residential care simply because it is cheaper. The ability to question these changes will be dramatically reduced, allowing the council to rubber stamp decisions without any meaningful engagement with the public. Barnet residents have a right and a need to scrutinise the Council and these changes will eliminate that scrutiny. I admit I do ask quite a few questions but that is simply because I believe committees are failing to provide adequate scrutiny. Conservative councillors keep saying the questions are political. The questions I ask are almost always about money and performance. With £20 million of budget cuts this year and a further £47 million of cuts over the next four years it is important that Councillors at least listen to the concerns of residents. If you think the Council’s proposals are wrong, please sign the petition here or go an visit your local Conservative Councillor before the Council meeting on 30 July. Details of all their councillors’ surgeries are on the Barnet Council website but I have summarised them here for your convenience.
Tuesday 16 July 2019 Greek Cypriot Centre, 2 Britannia Road, N12 9RU Annual General Meeting 6 pm Public meeting 7.30-9 pm Guest speakers: Paul and Adelaide Joseph
Barnet Alliance for Public Services is a coalition of residents, campaign groups and trade unions defending public services in Barnet. We meet every third Tuesday of the month from 6.30 to 8.30 at the Greek Cypriot Centre, North Finchley, 2 Britannia Road, London N12 9RU. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tuesday 16 July from 6.30 – 8.30 pm at the Cypriot Centre, Britannia Road London N12.
The first hour of the meeting has been set aside for general business, for a review of the past year and for discussion of further work to be undertaken by BAPS in the coming year.
For the second half of the meeting from 7.30 onwards we are pleased to announce guest speaker Adelaide Joseph and her husband Paul, both veteran ANC activists and campaigners. Their daugher Nadia will also participate in what it likely to be an interesting and inspiring presentation.