BSF Meeting

[CyberNerd]

Second part, your pension is protected by law under TUPE.

 

 

I'm still looking for the relevant doc, but since April 2007, once you cease to be employed by the LA, your LA pension is frozen. However, the company which is contracted to employ you has to provide a pension scheme of similar value.

 

The transferee employer (new employer) must offer a comparable pension and match employee contributions upto 6%. By agreement, you may be able to transfer your existing pension fund to the new employer but it's important to obtain a quotation of its value within the new scheme. The old pension scheme ends and the new pension starts at the date of transfer.

 

TUPE isn't all bad - it's designed to protect workers rights in event of a transfer and it's better than them saying 'you're sacked and get no pension' - of course, if we do get a change of government we may just loose these rights.

[Grommit]

 

 

I was there when they said "All ICT is to be taken over and you will be assimilated"

 

Have gone through the BSF process ?

And then been TUPEd and sacked by the new Overlords ?

 

.

 

I was lucky and was kept on in another role.....

 

But the 3 other schools around us the Network Managers left because they did not want to be downgraded to Technicians and were furious at losing their Networks that they had built and maintained.. as well as losing all control of the Network and doing anything intrestingly Technical....

 

No more writing funky VB Scripts..... No more working to get the "damn" server back up.....

 

 

They assisted in the BSF at the beginning but the facts that they had no "real" future in the finished Total Managed Service Product upset them and they decided they would go elsewhere..

 

Fact... No matter what anyone says ALL the Servers will be out of any on site technicans control they will be out of bounds execpt for remote.

 

Back to TUPE for a second

 

Pinched from a website:

"....

dismissal for a reason connected with the transfer of a business or undertaking is automatically unfair unless the employer can show that the reason was "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce" (reg 8(1) and (2) of the TUPE regulations, SI 1981/1794

....."

 

I'm looking a proposal right now that reduces my teams' number by half.

 

Are you saying here that everybody might not be TUPED ?

[GrumbleDook]

OK A quick note before going to bed (and up early to help with Exams download).

 

I just want to clearly state my interest and opinion on BSF. I obviously have not made it clear in spite of talking about it on a number of threads, giving examples and reasons.

 

BSF is unlikely to affect my school of other local schools for some time. PFI will not affect us either because of Academies and merged schools getting rebuilt.

 

When it does arrive I am unlikely to be affected because I am Manglement. I may opt to move and take on a high position but that is unlikely. The Business Manager (the other Assistant Head who is not a teacher) will not get moved over so I won't. I won't want to either as a chunk of my work has nothing to do with ICT, but is PR and politics.

 

Will the support team move? I seriously doubt it ... I will resist it because there would be no benefit at all for us.

 

Do I know schools it will help? Yes. Would I recommend they go to a managed service? Yes ... but I think some of them should go to a managed service right now, even if it meant Capita dotICT taking complete control ... some are that poor.

 

Am I pro or anti BSF? I am pro-BSf for the influx of money for new buildings and facilities ... am I pro or anti Managed Services (and that is what this is all about)? I am neither. I can see to upsides and downsides.

 

My main interest in all of this and why I am going to the meetings, speaking with the companies, trying to get some solid evidence about the supposed horror stories about contracts ... I get fed up with people stirring and not backing it up with anything other than opinion.

 

I am also doing this as part of my work within the ICT Register and the SSAT. They want to keep as many people in schools informed about what to look out for as they can.

 

Why am I doing it and not someone else? Because I am the one who got up off his backside and spoke with people. I am the one who had a good long chat with Steve Moss from PfS about it all and who has been round looking at Academies and schools that have federated services.

 

I am more than happy for others to work on this which is why these meetings are an open invite to EduGeek members. I am more than happy because a lot of this goes over and above what I am paid to do.

 

If members are not happy with what they think is a 'pro-BSF' stance I am more than happy to scale the meetings down and do it as an invite only thing ... report it all back to others and take the EduGeek name away.

 

I think this would be a bad thing. I am also more than happy to pass all of this onto any other member, give them all my contacts and any introductions that they require.

 

So there we have it ... in spite of me saying I won't respond until the report is out on Friday I have posted ... but I truly do feel that some of the comments about my impartiality are being twisted.

 

I just want to repeat one final thing.

 

*I*, and no single person here, has the weight to stop BSF or the ICT development section of it. To do so will take legal or political work and I neither have the time, funds, contacts or influence to take that on even if I thought it would get anywhere. I truly do not believe this group does either ... if the unions are not getting together over it all what hope do we have.

 

If people want to view it as damage limitation then feel free to. If people have information and evidence to help others then please share it, but please do not just say "tell them to go away" or "$company is lying to you and will change the rules in spite of what is in a contract with hefty legal penalties on it or what the law actually says".

 

Yes ... it is late ... this is a bit of a rant ... tomorrow I might add something a little bit more toned down once others have amended the draft report ... I might even apologise for the tone ... this is as close to flaming as I get now and I am out of practice.

 

Night all.

[kingswood]

I didn't see that as flaming at all Tony!

 

I think it is good that someone like yourself can get in there on our behalf and see what's really going on. Now I would *love* to come along to the meetings myself, but I have to say that I honestly don't have the time! So it's great that by proxy you are there and feeding the information back to us (no doubt out of your own time too).

 

The report is going to be interesting to say the least.

 

Now I am off to nurse a poorly tummy...had a nice meal out on Sunday that tuned out to be not so nice

 

Chicken...tikka...yuck!

 

Paul

[User3204]

Well, after a little chat with my Bursar this afternoon, I realise she knows as little about BSF as I thought I did. She was not aware that "Managed Services" would be part of a BSF bid....

 

Riiighht....

 

This worries me, how can she not know this ? She did say that there was no way that The Governers or the SLT would approve of going over to BSF.

 

She seemed to think that there were two schemes going around, the managed services PFI scheme, and a BSF rebuild the buildings scheme.

 

 

And our LA are just as disorganised, I suspect they know very little about what is happening in their Pathfinder school... maybe when that is finished they might realise.

 

 

 

I was really only chatting, because I'm trying to worm my way into a payrise...

[Grommit]

Well, after a little chat with my Bursar this afternoon, I realise she knows as little about BSF as I thought I did. She was not aware that "Managed Services" would be part of a BSF bid....

 

Riiighht....

 

This worries me, how can she not know this ? She did say that there was no way that The Governers or the SLT would approve of going over to BSF.

 

 

Thats what one of our Schools said at the start to keep their fantastic ICT manager and ICT staff in-house..

 

Untill they relised they would lose £1.5 million in ICT funding....

 

They quickly jumped on board the BSF/PFI ship..

[CyberNerd]

When I quizzed out HT about BSF he tried explaining how BSF was designed give the school more choice, that managed service wasn't mandatory etc. I soon realised I had already read more about BSF than he had.

 

Remember that even if LA's/SMT do know exactly what's going on they are not necessarily going keep the likes of us informed. They need to keep the service running up until it's transferred, if we all run off and get jobs in industry it's not going to help the school much.

[Oops_my_bad]

3) Work with bsf suppliers, psf, lea's, slt, schools get all facts work out where I can influence the process. Have open dialogue on all sides - Outcome There is chance I can make difference make sure that either not tuped or if tuped that protection in place so me as a network manager doesn't become a 'toner changer'..

 

This still has the same outcome as all your other options - LEA tupe everyone across and you have the worse case.

[Thomas]

Tony - I'll happily come along to one of these meetings.

 

From what I can see it's a veritable government steamroller and there's not a lot that can be achieved by meeting people - but I'll keep an open mind on that. It seems if you're not in the upper echelons of school management (heaven forbid ) then you can wave goodbye to autonomy which, to my mind, is one of the perks of being a School ICT bod.

 

But regardless, I'd be interested in meeting the protagonists!

[Guest richard]

Well I have decided after a lot of thought that I will be leaving education within the next 12-18 months. After all the crap I have been through with one of my schools and the threat of BSF. I have decided that I cannot put up with all the stress and aggro. Whether I stay in IT at all remains to be seen.

[kingswood]

Well, I have read through the BSF report that Tony knocked up in response to the meeting with RM and others. I have to say that it doesn't sound convincing.

 

In summary:

 

TUPEd jobs are secure for the length of the contract - though this may change ("no bid at this time specifies that this is different").

 

Pensions will be carried forward

 

Wage matching will be in place- compared to the relevant RM structure.

 

Salaries based on current work and skills and "the impact you have", and those with "exceptional skills" or "high impact" will have this reflected in their pay. No salaries will be cut or capped.

 

Flexible working- often as NMs and technicians we (out of the love of the job work extra hours outwith our normal working hours. It seems RM are saying this will be paid "at normal rate".

 

Union response and involvement, innovative schools, and the use of open source software seem to be points which RM are taking a wider view of or are in need of collaboration on.

 

I liked that RM were very positive about the need to keep support staff in place to act as enablers of the BSF vision. This is surely encouraging- whether TUPEd or in place as normal through the school in direct employment. Re-grading and reductions in staffing are balances to this promising outlook though- RM seem to at the same time hold the caveat that "it is hard to claim that all support staff remain in their jobs".

 

As Tony mentions in the report, evidence is needed either way.

 

I'm not sure about the terms used to reference TUPEd jobs and length of contract- it seems too open ended. I wonder whether RM will change this contractual promise when reality bites and they need to be more flexible about re-engineering the structure of ICT Support within the BSF paradise that will be? I am also not sure what is meant by the vague phrases that were used in reference to wages- according to "impact" and skills levels. Who will set these skill levels and who measures "impact" and by what standards??

 

It would be good to see far more union involvement in this process to act as a balance to the whole. It seems that RM are concerned about the lack of consultation and collaboration from unions, but has anyone asked the unions about BSF directly?

 

The emphasis in the report on making sure to read the fine detail and contrast that with current levels of service and support requirements is sound advice. I know that Tony has argued for some time that being a technician or NM in a school should (must?) mean more than a technical source at times of need; it has to show impact on teaching and learning. Analysing the terms of managed services that attempt (for whatever reasons) to reduce the skill level of support on site and having written into contracts the impact support has on teaching and learning might help keep this to a minimum, but I can't help feeling that managed service providers use this a ruse to gently nudge the more competent out the door and open the way for cheeper support staff with less experience and more company connection.

 

Anyway, there is a lot of work to do and for some people this whole process has no doubt cost them their sanity already. The fact that RM- as one of preferred bidders and suppliers to BSF- has opened up even this much is a bonus. However it seems to me that they are struggling to not only justify their market lead in this new area, but also finding it hard to honestly explain and justify how they can make it work for existing staff and schools. And that is really what this is about.

 

Cheers Tony for the updates- good work on the report. Keep it up!

 

Paul

[CyberNerd]

TUPEd jobs are secure for the length of the contract - though this may change ("no bid at this time specifies that this is different")

 

sadly the wording from RM is looking like they'll be limiting the number of people TUPE'd - Russ/Tony are trying to clarify to what extent RM intend to TUPE and in what circumstances they'll of offer their own contracts.

http://www.edugeek.net/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10970&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[kingswood]

TUPEd jobs are secure for the length of the contract - though this may change ("no bid at this time specifies that this is different")

 

sadly the wording from RM is looking like they'll be limiting the number of people TUPE'd - Russ/Tony are trying to clarify to what extent RM intend to TUPE and in what circumstances they'll of offer their own contracts.

http://www.edugeek.net/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10970&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Thanks for the link- I missed most of that conversation so it's valuable to look over and see what opinions are on this. I think you are correct. If you look at recent reports on BSF (from the BBC) the whole process is screwed. If you have been affected by BSF at your school you will know better than I that this is true. The goal- whether they state it so or not- is to move ICT support to their managed services and staff. If the goal were to keep local staff employed at their current level of pay (or better- dependent on "impact" and "skills") then the cost would be way too high for RM or any other managed provider and would defeat the goal of ICT services in BSF!

 

Some of the questions you noted were missing from the report- so it would be good to read RM's response to those particular items. More direct questions, straight answers, and more clarity from government and unions would be a good place to start.

 

Paul

[broc]

The TUPE consultation period prior to the transfer must disclose to all affected employees whether the new employer envisages any changes to the workforce (reducing the workforce). This is the law and not something RM are doing to be nice, they are simply not allowed to make redundancy to TUPE employees unless they have disclosed so in the consultation period.

.

 

I have worked with companies who have outsourced IT support. (I worked for a global IT outsourcing company). As always there are good and bad outsourcing contracts. In the private sector outsourcing was done historically to reduce/contain costs, not improve service. Quite a few early adopters of outsourcing have brought services back in-house, sometimes at huge penalty costs because they have realised they have lost flexibility and are not realising the benefits they expected.

 

Also, people are right to be concerned about TUPE, it may offer little long term security.

 

Don't forget TUPE regulations provide employers with 'get-out' clauses, that allow them to shed labour for any one of three reasons despite what the contract might initially say:

 

1) Economic grounds - ie they will go bust if they don't.....

2) Organisational - so a service provider could centralise server support staff and decide they no longer need local skills

3) Technical - so a service provider could decide to get rid of any skills he does not need.... like thin client, Unix etc.

 

Any one of these can and are used by outsourcing companies to trim costs as & when required. TUPE is there to allow the ex-employer to sleep at nights with a clear conscience that they have done their 'best' for their ex-employees.

[CyberNerd]

Indeed, but they still need to declare that they intend on making these changes in the consultation period, prior to the transfer taking place. What RM seemed to indicate (in a round about way) that there is an intention to change contracts and this could mean that there may be job losses.

 

Interestingly I was speaking to a friend at the weekend who was telling me about new European accounting rules that mean that PFI spending must now be declared as public sector spending. Previously the Govt could effectively avoid it being on the books as public service spending. She said that many PFI projects are likely to fall by the wayside, maybe if we keep hassling people about the bad side to BSF things will change for future projects as the money starts to dry up.

[Geoff]

Ah yes, I recall reading a blog on that (here infact).