BSF - or outsourcing by another name

[Geoff]

As a matter of interest, has anyone seen a financial case for outsourcing school ICT? I have seen several statements which say it is a 'good' thing, but no indepth analysis of why, or any cost benefit analysis.

 

I'm fairly sure this is something BECTA has looked at. However I can't seem to find anything on their site.

[russdev]

Also bear in mind that the pensions on offer when an employee has been 'TUPE'd does NOT have to offer exactly the same benefits, and in any case these can be eroded/cancelled at the whim of the employer - just like the Local Government Pension Scheme which is under threat as we speak.

 

my understanding is they do have to offer same pension scheme as your on as you not part of a merger but in effect they company is buying out your contract.

 

and again if they company then change pension scheme they have to consult unions like lge do now...

 

as it is lea pension scheme there are slightly different rules..

 

and in fact it could quite easily be that lea will keep control of pension scheme...

 

but as said contact your union and talk to them and report back in...

 

Russ

[broc]

Based upon my experience representing an organisation which outsourced part of its operation to a private company, the new employer does not have to offer exactly the same pension benefits. They may offer a package which is broadly the same in actuarial terms but it need not be exactly the same. They could vary +/- lump sum benefits, spouses pension, retirement age, deductions for early retirement, whatever they like. As long as the actuarial 'value' of the scheme is broadly the same at the time of transfer this will get a tick in the box. Afterwards they can do anything. Unfortunately not all employers (particularly multinationals) recognise union representation so you may not be able to rely upon the unions to protect your pension.

 

Of course, you could find yourself 'outsourced' from your school to your LEA, in which case your pension will remain the same!

[alan-d]

The real danger is for NMs in that an outsourced school would be happy to pay for a technician to be on site all day everyday but why pay twice for technical advice, procurement advice and all the other higher level services provided by having a Network manager on site?

 

As for the site name - who cares what other people think? As long as those that need to know and want to know what the site is all about then where is the problem?

 

Those that giggle at the name 'Geek' are obviously too small minded to be worthy of our company

[wesleyw]

NMs usually (Not in all cases) have a broader knowledge of networking and technical roles so you are also paying more for that knowledge if a school knows it will get that from its LEA then I'd have to agree why would the school bother with anything more than a basic Techie?

 

Being a NM myself and having worked through from Trainee Tech I don't really want to be cast aside just because the government has come up with another scheme which they think will help schools, but what really can I do about it?

 

One option is of course to jump ship before this happens in so doing I think I'd have a look at completing several courses I.E. CCNA, CNE, MSP, MCP, MCSE, Prince 2 and ITIL giving you a good chance of getting a job in Project and Infrastructure management (and a much better wage )Another is we could always start an Edugeek Consultancy Firm (We do have a national base after all) and we become the outsource company? I've been looking into this for a few years now, running your own business isn't hard (I've done it myself before now, and if I can do it then anyone else can! lol). I am also trying to convince our head about the benefits of supporting other local schools. Having read about the next policy Mr Blair wants to bring in giving greater freedom and independancy to schools doesn't this conflict with the idea of centralising support within an outsource company or an LEA? Centralising servers means most of the schools are going to suffer from a slow response time when wanting new (Network) software to be installed or when requesting a new service (say multimedia streaming or video conferencing) with the time it takes LEAs (I've had contact with) to sort out opening ports for instance, means most schools will be taking several steps back in their technical support history? Okay I'll admit its not the LEAs fault in a lot of cases they just don't have enough people to support that many schools (funding issues again I think!)

But the government needs to look at this in reality not some dreamland invented by government officals that haven't worked in schools.

 

Sorry about the rant there just don't like the idea of losing my job to someones dream of the future!

 

 

 

Wes

[wesleyw]

As for the term Geek I'll agree with Alan-D who cares what anyone else thinks the site is good and I've never had a problem finding out how to do something using everyones expertise at the site, its results that count not the name after all!

 

Wes

[russdev]

Based upon my experience representing an organisation which outsourced part of its operation to a private company, the new employer does not have to offer exactly the same pension benefits. They may offer a package which is broadly the same in actuarial terms but it need not be exactly the same. They could vary +/- lump sum benefits, spouses pension, retirement age, deductions for early retirement, whatever they like. As long as the actuarial 'value' of the scheme is broadly the same at the time of transfer this will get a tick in the box. Afterwards they can do anything. Unfortunately not all employers (particularly multinationals) recognise union representation so you may not be able to rely upon the unions to protect your pension.

 

agian i understand it they have recongnise your union...

 

this not outsourcing as such...

 

also different rules when it is lea based contract that is being looked at...

 

reason our lea union rep knows about this is because at moment in our lea on the adventure camp places is going to be run by an youth org and so they are going through all this..

 

 

so to summarise my rep is saying the following: -

 

- that pension is pritected as is oay

- they have to aknowledege your union status..

- they cant fire as part of bf transfer

- length of service transfer

 

 

for those that diagree with me it would be interesting if you can contact your nuon rep and discuss it with them and report back what they said...

 

as this need to be addressed if unions are saying different things

 

russ

[broc]

TUPE means that your employment continues on the same terms and conditions as before the transfer (pension excepted). However the employer is entitled to make changes for "economic, technical or organisational" (ETO) reasons. Also, I think you will find that the level of pension protection offered by TUPE is a smoke screen and is no more than you would get if you leave one employer and start working for another.

 

To quote a Unison document .....

 

"Future pension rights after the date of transfer are excluded from the TUPE Regulations but accrued pension rights up to the time of transfer are protected. "

 

and

 

"The Cabinet Office guidance on pensions when employees are transferred out of the public sector states that the new employer should provide a broadly comparable pension scheme with a bulk transfer option".

 

Broadly comparable is not the same as equal.

 

You have no employment protection if you have worked for your employer for less than a year, and to quote Unison again ....

 

TUPE protection does not "run out" after a certain length of time. But in practice the TUPE Regulations cannot indefinitely protect employees who transfer to a new employer. For example, although it is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee with one year’s service for any reason connected with the transfer, it can be difficult to show a connection between the dismissal and the transfer. This is particularly true the longer the period of time has elapsed since the transfer took place.

 

The new employer will often bring in new workers on inferior terms and conditions of employment to those who have transferred – operating a "two-tier workforce". Those employees who have transferred on enhanced terms are therefore likely to seem less attractive to retain in the long term. Employers may either seek to get rid of transferred employees or "equalise" (worsen) their terms with those of the new starters. Although terms and conditions on transfer are protected, employees may be put under pressure to agree to changes or offered a new employment package, the effect of which is to end the TUPE protection.

 

To be fair, there is a Government consultation exercise looking at TUPE which may improve safeguards, but this is the same Government that has decided that Civil Servants pensions are more important than local Government pensions so who knows what will happen.

 

Try Googling TUPE, look at uk.legal

 

Brian

[russdev]

yer but thats the key if you accept new contract....

 

but then under bsf i belive pensions are included as an extra to tupe....

 

but then not sure broc how about contacting you local union rep and speaking to them as if two different unison reps are giving two different views then it need to be clarified...

 

russ

[broc]

Take a look at

 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/individual/tupeguide2006regs.pdf

 

Worry about ETO......

 

Brian

[russdev]

http://www.bipsolutions.com/briefings/Briefings2000/Brief08_00.php

 

"there should be appropriate arrangements to protect occupational pensions, redundancy and severance terms of staff in all these types of transfer."

 

as been saying tupe applies but there is special exception as it is public sector

 

russ

[broc]

Sorry but I think you are being naive, but there again I am being very pessimistic!

 

Appropriate arrangements = pension which is broadly equivalent , not the same and ETO still overrides what little employment protection there is. After all, under UK employment law you have little or no job security now, so why should TUPE make it any more secure?

 

Consider this scenario:

 

A major IT company outsources school support for Northumberland and Devon (apologies to anyone employed in those counties, I use them purely for geographic reasons). All IT support people tranfer to the IT company. They consolidate the schools servers & their support to their central data centre in West Midlands. A couple of years down the line they decide they have too many people onsite in Northumberland and Devon. What do they do? They could offer 'protection' by asking some people in Northumberland/Devon to relocate to HQ in West Midlands, or to one of their other outsourced clients (with/without relocation support), or they could apply ETO rules (on organisational or economic grounds). If you don't agree to move you are redundant. If they don't want you they will ask you to move to the worst possible place with no financial assistance to discourage you from staying.

 

In the big bad world of outsourcing this happens, believe me! You could try an industrial tribunal, but I bet the outsourcing company & its legal team will have a watertight case under the ETO rules........

[russdev]

not saying all rose tinited glasses but not as bad as people first think...

 

What i am trying to say it is not straight case of this or that same i beleiev company's will try and do everything they can to make it work for them...

 

The point I am trying to get is as this national 'out source' project then we as workers need national view and unions and not have different pictures from different branches in some ways need to send national statement on the issue.

 

In fact how about this if db and majority agrees then I will send a letter to unions and gmb from edugeek basicly asking for union to release a breifing on the subject on the bsf,

 

how it will effect ict support/staff in genreal/what rights staff have, etc etc

 

if pension is protected, right for union is regonised etc etc

 

Then we have it plain balc and white..

 

also remeber that the contracts for bsf have to go before unions as well and lea can not accept cheapest deal they have to accept 'best deal' offer.

 

So unions have a chance to suggest improvements to contracts etc...

 

also do talk to your local branch about bsf and found out local siutation and please do report back to us...

 

Russ

[broc]

On the Government BSF website http://www.bsf.gov.uk/ there is a section headed 'what about me?

 

It contains links to sections describing what BSF means to students, teachers, headteachers, governors, parents,LEAs, private sector, in fact everybody but school support staff.

 

Says it all really.

[russdev]

sent to website

 

 

"Why is it on the building school for future website you have a what about me section you include sections for every person in the school except support staff and in particular the ict support staff who will be heavily effected by out sourcing of ict in BSF project..

 

Once again this reinforces the image that DFES see support staff as second class to rest of school life when they have important part to play with in any school.

 

I expect to see this gross mistake altered at once...

 

From

 

Russell Dyas

 

p.s

 

I require response by email please."

 

Russ

[broc]

I had a conversation with one of my LEA IT technical support team recently. He was mildly surprised at the idea that secondary school ICT might be outsourced under BSF, but a bit more surprised when I suggested it might have a knock-on affect in his own organisation.

 

A question to pose to your LEA support teams.....Why would a private ICT company, having outsourced all of the secondary school ICT purchasing, support, & servers need an LEA support team?

[russdev]

I had a conversation with one of my LEA IT technical support team recently. He was mildly surprised at the idea that secondary school ICT might be outsourced under BSF, but a bit more surprised when I suggested it might have a knock-on affect in his own organisation.

 

A question to pose to your LEA support teams.....Why would a private ICT company, having outsourced all of the secondary school ICT purchasing, support, & servers need an LEA support team?

 

and also whats stopping the company getting support contract with capita and cutting lea out of admin system...

 

russ

[broc]

.... or Capita 'being' the outsourcing company...........shudder.......

[petectid]

I had a conversation with one of my LEA IT technical support team recently. He was mildly surprised at the idea that secondary school ICT might be outsourced under BSF, but a bit more surprised when I suggested it might have a knock-on affect in his own organisation.

 

A question to pose to your LEA support teams.....Why would a private ICT company, having outsourced all of the secondary school ICT purchasing, support, & servers need an LEA support team?

 

and also whats stopping the company getting support contract with capita and cutting lea out of admin system...

 

russ

 

This may happen, as Capita seem to manage to win contracts through the dfes no matter how much they mess up. They won the chance to continue running the teachers pension fund even though they had lost millions of pounds worth of teacher’s contributions. I am definatley in the camp that believes LEAs will not be running school admin systems under current conditions but may have to re-tender for the contracts in a world where they will not be able to compete. I believe this because the present Government, which will be backed by the opposition, as they are on the Education bill, wants to give schools more autonomy from LEAs.

[broc]

I had a conversation with one of my LEA IT technical support team recently. He was mildly surprised at the idea that secondary school ICT might be outsourced under BSF, but a bit more surprised when I suggested it might have a knock-on affect in his own organisation.

 

A question to pose to your LEA support teams.....Why would a private ICT company, having outsourced all of the secondary school ICT purchasing, support, & servers need an LEA support team?

 

and also whats stopping the company getting support contract with capita and cutting lea out of admin system...

 

russ

 

This may happen, as Capita seem to manage to win contracts through the dfes no matter how much they mess up. They won the chance to continue running the teachers pension fund even though they had lost millions of pounds worth of teacher’s contributions. I am definatley in the camp that believes LEAs will not be running school admin systems under current conditions but may have to re-tender for the contracts in a world where they will not be able to compete. I believe this because the present Government, which will be backed by the opposition, as they are on the Education bill, wants to give schools more autonomy from LEAs.

 

Both BSF and the Whitepaper have got it in for the LEAs. What bothers me is the alternatives of trust schools, LEPs, and the need to keep private shareholders happy don't present a particularly attractive alternative to life under the LEAs. At least there is some degree of public accountability with the LEAs. It feels like every support role (not just ICT) in education is under some form of privatisation threat right now

[petectid]

I couldn't agree more Broc, I'm not anti LEA, by far I support there role in schools as they have a closer link with the public locally and are more accountable. Though I do believe that they should be watching these moves carefully not not just sitting there in the belief they are un-touchable, because they are not and will almost certainly have to tender for their current role in providing things like SIMs support.

[broc]

I was invited as a guest to attend a meeting held by my local Unison branch last night. The main speaker was a Unison official from a neighbouring local authority, part of wave 1 BSF. This LA, supported by the unions & staff had secured agreement to centralise ICT delivery and keep it under LA control. Approx 50 staff (network managers and ICT technicians) were expected to be 'transferred' to the LA.

 

The single most significant message from the meeting was that Partnership for Schools are obsessed with the idea of centralised ICT procurement, delivery, and support all to be delivered by private companies as part of a Local Education Partnership (LEP). If a Local Authority wishes to bid for that service provision they may do so, but they will be judged against the private competition. Partnership for Schools expect the private ICT service providers to predominate.

 

The status quo, where schools have their own autonomy with ICT is not expected to survive. Schools who wished to be excluded were told they would not receive any of the BSF ICT funding, typically £1m or more for a medium sized school.

 

The rather blunt message to members was those who wish to remain in the employ of their LA need to engage in discussion as early as possible during the BSF program. They need to canvass support from their own school, SMT, teachers, Governors. They need to engage in dialogue with their LEA, LA, and local councillors. The LA needs to successfully bid for the delivery of ICT in its own schools.

 

If you want to work for a private ICT supplier, sit back and do nothing.......

[russdev]

thats been my point all along starting talking about it not only to lea but unions, heads. smt, everybody

 

russ

[Dos_Box]

I think its time I added my two-pence-worth in to the fray. For some time now in my LEA we have had a guy doing an ICT audit of the first tranche of schools committed to BSF. His findings are quite disturbing. Please remember he has to view all of the schools as a single entity in terms of hardware which can be reused in the new schools.

In some schools it has been reported that there is almost no evidence that the school had invested any of the money received for NGfL funding for 6 years. Some schools (secondary) are still running Windows 95 and NT 4.0 server. If out of 5 schools only one has a modern and effective ICT stucture the other 4 still bring it down then any chance of them ever being allowed to run their own networks is minimal should they have applied as part of the bidding process.

I trust here that we all have modern and well kept networks, but I know that this is just not the case. Funds are diverted or squandered on pointless projects or support contracts. Purchaing decisions are overridden by management who don't appreciate the knock on effect of their actions, and in some cases incompetant and unskilled staff employed to maintain networks far beyond their abilities. I remain hopeful that in my area we have picked a decent solution (not RM or M$) from a reputable company who should understand a schools needs and do their upmost to accomodate the new schools. It will however come as a shock to some teachers who will now find that they have to follow procedures and fill out requests to get the support that they are so used to having at the drop of a hat to the increaed blood pressure of us all.

[NetworkGeezer]

Hear! Hear! Well said that man.

/me waves order paper.