Meeting documents

Appx 7

Joint Union Response to Home Care Proposals

For Council Executive on Wed 6^th September

B&NES Trades Unions are providing these comments for Council Executive, having consulted our members at two joint union meetings, and we would like the opportunity to address the Executive to expand upon our concerns.

Introduction

It is important to note that the Home Care service has always been held in high regard in the local area, and during the period when social services were provided by the County of Avon, it was recognised that Avon was a leading authority nationally for the provision of Home Care. This was reflected by the high level of public satisfaction with the service, and this continued under B&NES despite changes to the service caused by a revised commissioning strategy: the service was only recently awarded a Charter Mark for "Excellence in the provision of a public service" and this was signed by Tony Blair, Prime Minister.

Staff side believe that the current situation is therefore not only very regrettable, but also entirely unnecessary. It seems that a first class service has been brought to its knees not because of the "inflexibility" of the staff (or trades unions), but because of a failed commissioning strategy which has encouraged the private sector to develop directly at the expense of our own in- house service. All of this flies in the face of what the public want, since increasing numbers of people are being denied a proper service as eligibility criteria are redrawn.

Management of the service

Several years ago, the first major change to the Home Care service was proposed and implemented, when so-called domestic and personal care tasks were separated. Staff side opposed the changes at the time, particularly the issue of privatising 30% of Home Care `business'. However, as criteria have been altered/ redrawn, it has become apparent that more than 30% has been pushed out, and although recently , management have made attempts to bring work back in- house, we believe that this is too little, too late. Apart from the very debatable issue of what constitutes `personal care', the current issue of `downtime' can be traced back to this: our members have worked hard and have been willing to take work on, but due to rules from on high about what they can or cannot do (recently reinforced by the fair access to care moderate band being dropped) they have effectively had work taken away from them and are then blamed for this situation.

What has been consistent throughout this time has been the senior management mantra that our members are too "inflexible". Apart from the obviously grotesque spectacle of having very well paid senior managers lecturing mostly low paid female workers about their flexibility, when the former would not be required to do this themselves, it is also inaccurate. At our union meetings, it became clear that the vast majority do work evenings & weekends now, as well as mornings, and for the few that have not changed their contracts, it is for good reasons. In any case, if service needs have changed and the old contractual hours no longer suit, the authority could surely have paid redundancy to those affected, since this would be the correct interpretation of employment law...or does this only apply to managers?

Level Playing Field?

From our union meetings and comments from other members well placed in adult care social services, it is clear that a pattern is emerging which leads to in-house services being much more strictly judged than the private sector. Therefore, if our service could not take on a care package in its entirety, it would be handed to the private sector, whilst the latter appear (more recently) able to choose how much of a package they do: this creates a mixed package which the original intention was to avoid. Furthermore, and the reason the public tend to want council provided Home Care, concerns the issue of consistency of care. Feedback from members has highlighted how a number of agencies have ended packages of care prematurely, with little warning, with our service picking up the support. The private sector also clearly `cherry pick': how would this be affected if the service went private, particularly in the rural area, where fewer clients over greater distances would affect their profits?

The issue of `unit costs' fits into this picture. Therefore, the costs of in-house service is highlighted, but as highlighted in the national Starfish report ("The Elusive Costs of Homecare" 2002, included as appendix) there is rarely a true like for like comparison, and figures are distorted to "prove" what those who wish to privatise the service want. In the case of B&NES, we have a large (and seemingly expanding) management team - is this cost factored in, since even if the service is privatised, then this cost will remain. The downtime report is also based on selective interviews and an IT system introduced a year ago which isn't always accurate. One of the anomalies which was reported was of a Home Care who was contracted to work 37 hours and was shown to have 48 hours' downtime.

Conclusion

From the above, staff side believe it is clear that an entirely different conclusion should be drawn to that recommended by the Director, namely that the service should remain in- house & with the Council, so that a high quality and consistent Home Care service can continue to be provided for the people of B&NES.

Much has been made of the issues of downtime, costs, and flexibility of the service. We believe that some of this is due to the "privatise" dogma which seems to afflict the higher levels of management, but is universally unpopular with staff and public alike, but there is growing evidence that this is not a cheaper option in any case, only less democratic or accountable. Staff side do accept, however, that service needs can change, in which case why not have meaningful negotiations about how to keep the service contemporary and accountable, rather than what seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a partisan report?