Buckton Vale Primary School Swallow Lane Carrbrook SK15 3NU

29th January 2016

To: Councillor Kieran Quinn -Executive Leader of the Council Members of the Executive Cabinet

Copies to: MP for Stalybridge and Hyde MP for Denton and Reddish MP for Ashton-under-Lyne Adrian Pearce Councillor for Jan Jackson Councillor for Stalybridge North Kevin Welsh Councillor for Stalybridge North Paul Taylor Unison Branch Secretary Tameside John Lewis Unison Regional Representative

Tameside Council Proposed Changes to Terms and Conditions of Council Employees – Consultation Response

The majority of staff named below are long serving employees of Tameside Council and the school.

We understand and sympathise with the continued constraints the council has to face under the Government’s austerity measures. However, we feel it necessary to write to officially register our grave concerns and disappointment at the council’s decision to change staffs terms and conditions in an effort to make further savings from the staffing budget.

We have chosen not to engage in the consultation exercise and therefore not ‘rank’ the available choices which could result in reducing other members of staffs pay when in some cases they are paid less than us.

We have raised a number of questions and observations on the proposals and the process, which are listed below:

General Observations

 80% of support staff, employed in schools and elsewhere in the council, according to a FOI request live within Tameside. We have always considered the council to be a caring employer and to be mindful of the needs of the community it serves. We believe that reducing staffs’ terms and conditions will force lower paid employees living in the borough into greater financial hardship.  Those already experiencing low pay and working unsocial hours will have more money taken from them by reducing their allowances, mileage and overtime amongst other things. We do not believe that this is the action of a responsible and caring employer.  Tameside is ranked 34 out of all local authorities for deprivation in the country, number 1 being the most deprived. As noted above a high percentage of people living in the borough work for the council. Surely if the borough’s population falls further into poverty more services will be needed to support them, costing the council and the Government more in benefits and services for the vulnerable. Could it be that the council ends up in a position whereby it has to appoint more staff to support its own employees because it does not pay them enough to have a decent standard of living? We question whether a long term view has been taken when drawing up these proposals.  The reduction in pension contributions resulting from the cuts will lead to more people living in poverty in old age, again, putting a greater demand on services in the future.  Any strike action will result in savings to the council. Will this be deducted from the proposal to save £1,000,000 and thus save staff from further cuts?  We question the reasoning behind the proposal to reduce sick pay for those on long term sick when it is obvious that these employees are at their most vulnerable and need financial support during this time.

School Specific Observations

 Please clarify where any savings made in schools will accrue to, will it be the council or school budget? If savings are kept in schools’ budgets what benefit is there to the council, are support staff in schools going to experience cuts to their terms and conditions which will not contribute directly in any way to the council’s savings?  There is no mention of Governing Bodies which are responsible for the selection and appointment of staff in schools. One of the many important functions of Governing Bodies is to approve annual budgets which include staffing structures. We would have thought that governors would have been included in the process from the onset as any savings from strike action and changes to terms and conditions would need to be accounted for in their short and long term planning. The submission of accurate budgets being a legal requirement.  If terms and conditions are the same for staff employed in and out of schools why are there the differences as listed below:  school support staff are specifically excluded from some items in the flexible working policy as displayed on the Tameside website.  school support staff cannot work under the flexi time scheme.  school support staff cannot work condensed hours.  school support staff cannot take holidays in term time.  the majority of school support staff cannot work all year round.  school support staff cannot access the severance scheme – we have never been informed that it is available unlike council staff who have had access to their figures on a number of occasions, in one case on a database created for the purpose. It seems obvious that considerable savings could be made if the severance option was open to schools.  If the 3 days sickness without pay option is implemented teaching assistants will now have to cover classes for teachers who take sick leave knowing that if they themselves are sick they will not be paid. How does this contribute to ensuring a dedicated, motivated and efficient school team?  Why is the teachers’ maternity scheme not included in the proposals as this is a local agreement? We also question if it is ethical to have a more generous scheme for teachers than support staff?  Schools are responsible for their own budgets, isn’t it up to them how they allocate the funding to deliver much needed educational services? Savings could be made from non-staffing budgets which would not result in creating reduced moral, reduced efficiency and less time taken off due to stress. Schools also have the option to undertake staffing reviews to tailor their structures to meet changing educational needs. Wouldn’t it be better to ask schools to undertake staffing reviews, offering severance to staff as a way of contributing more directly to the council’s overall savings?

The proposed changes undermine the professionalism of senior leaders in schools and shows little respect for Headteachers’ and Governing Bodies, taking away the decision making process as to how to manage their schools and leaving them to deal with the ‘fall out’. Increased stress and sickness will result from the proposals’ implementation even though savings would be made from the 3 day sickness rule.

We have provided a number of examples above of areas where support staff in schools in reality do not work under the same terms and conditions as other members of staff, in which case they should be removed from this process. An alternative would be to introduce a consultation exercise with headteachers and governing bodies dedicated to exploring how all parties can best contribute more directly to the council’s savings.

From the following staff at Buckton Vale Primary School:

Teaching Assistants Cleaners/Midday Assistants Office/IT J Aitken S Mellor L Cox W Thompson L Bezer C Lister L Metcalfe M Maude C Roberts J Hague N Marler L Wragg D Darraugh M Garrigan G Howard J Cherry

We refer you to the Leader’s blog from November 15:

‘The Council and I are determined to grow the Tameside economy, create sustainable, high-quality employment and give every resident the best possible chance to get on. But we know this is a long-term project, and that there are people in financial difficulty who need our help now, especially over the Christmas period. To those people I say: We are here for you’.