- An outline chronology of events, past, present and future
| 1. |
May
1991---The Government produce a White Paper
entitled "Education and Training for the Twenty-first
Century". |
| 2. |
Main
thrust---This document sets out major changes
to the organisation and financing of Further Education.
Its aim is to increase student numbers
and reduce unit costs. The Further
Education sector was to be removed from the
control of local authorities and funding of
the sector 'centralised'. |
| 3. |
Distribution
of funds---Further Education Funding Councils
are to be established to agree funding levels
with the F.E. Colleges. There are approximately
463 of these colleges in total.
|
| 4. |
The
FEFC is established by the Government as
a quango; the key figures are appointed by the
Secretary of State. |
| 5. |
The
Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is the
mechanism by which these new institutions are
formed. |
| 6. |
The
Act also places colleges on a corporation footing.
Each college becomes a separate legal personality
with powers of decision-making vested in the governing
body. |
| 7. |
On
the 1st April 1993, colleges become independent
statutory corporations. For the staff involved
this change of ownership represents a 'transfer
of undertakings' as understood in European
Law (Directive 77/187) and its domestic law
equivalent, the Transfer of Undertakings Protection
of Employment Legislation. |
| 8. |
It
is quickly realised that the colleges are not
as independent as they think they are. This point
is reinforced by the Chief Executive of the College
Employers Forum, one Roger Ward, in
his CEF bulletins to principals, but in coded
form. |
| 9. |
Ward
rose to fame as the Chief Executive of the Polytechnics
and Colleges Employers Forum (PCEF). Like the
later version, the CEF, its role is to
manage the "industrial relations climate" in the
"new sector". |
| 10. | Wards'
background is as a trades union official
and, it transpires, is, or becomes a confidante
of government officials and ministers. He is destined
to be made a CBE and realises the 'honour'
in the 1995 list. |
| 11. |
In
the absence of any industrial relations expertise,
governing bodies of the majority of colleges elect
to join the CEF, at a cost of several thousand
pounds per year. Wards' success in attracting
colleges to his organisation enables him to enjoy
many benefits. A chauffeur-driven Jaguar is one
symbol of his success. |
| 12. |
The
CEF under his control enlists the help of Norton-Rose,
a very large firm of solicitors to draw up 'new
contracts' for existing staff. These contracts
represent a 'major' deterioration in the terms
and conditions of staff in colleges. He places
considerable emphasis upon the legal expertise
he has enlisted. Principals are impressed. |
| 13. |
The
contracts increase the workload of academic
staff by 40% through the addition of 7 hours
a week, and extending the college year by removing
holiday entitlements. There are many other 'hidden
extras' in the 'new contracts' and as Ward himself
says in one of the CEFs bulletins....."what is
left out is more important than what is put in". |
| 14. |
The
object is to pressurise existing staff to change
to these new contracts. In one instance, at
Bath College, sixty staff were sacked for their
refusal to sign the new contracts, even though
their rights to enjoy the conditions that they
had before the transfer are protected in law.
Bath is forced to reinstate the employees. |
| 15. | The
'offer to change to the new contracts and accept
the vastly increased workload is accompanied
by a lump sum inducement of approximately £500
(taxable) and 2.9% increase in salary. There
is a massive imbalance in the remuneration package.
The reduction in 'unit costs' is at
the root of it. The aims of the White Paper, to
reduce unit costs while increasing student numbers,
can only be achieved by deteriorating terms and
conditions of staff, because 80% of a typical
colleges' budget is spent on staff salaries. |
| 16. |
All
new starters and promotees on the 1st
April 1994 are put on these contracts and
a great deal of pressure is placed on existing
'Silver Book' staff to change contracts.
Among the pressures is the withholding of the
2.9% award from those who remain on
the original local authority contracts.
These suggestions are contained in the CEF document
entitled the 'Enabling Contracts Review'
and border on an incitement to breach contracts. |
| 17. |
The
CEFs position re: contracts is backed by the Secretary
of State for Education and Mr.Tim Boswell,
the Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
FE, has a particularly close relationship with
the CEF as his many letters to them indicate.
All his communications are concerned with encouraging
and 'assisting' the CEF to pressurise
staff into the changes. |
| 18. |
This
is effected by holding back 2% of the grant
to colleges.....ie: their budget, unless,
and until the government will is met. The (then
Tory) government 'professes' an interest in
how public funds are spent but has a "very
significant influence" in this matter. In
fact, 'interference' is probably a more
accurate term. |
| 19. | The
first indication of the intention to use a holdback
mechanism to 'ensure' the introduction of new
'flexible' contracts is in PCEF Bulletin No.1
dated 1991. |
| 20. |
In
that bulletin, Roger Ward outlines the way in
which 'holdback' will be used to effect the
changes in terms and conditions. He speaks
of CEF/DES policy in this area as though they
were one and the same. Remember. in 1991 it was
still the DES. |
| 21. |
As
predicted in the 1991 bulletin from the PCEF,
Boswell communicates by letter with the various
'Chairs' of the CEF board. These letters continue
throughout 1993 and 1994. Some predate incorporation
itself. The message is very much the same.
Change the terms and conditions of your staff
or risk losing grant. The link between unit
costs and flexible contracts is forged in Boswells
letter to the CEF on the 2nd August 1994. |
| 22. | In
a letter to the CEF dated 1st December 1994,
Boswell makes it patently clear that any contracts
entered into after the 1st April 1994, must be
no less flexible than those the corporations have
already agreed. |
| 23. |
Effectively,
the government has now intervened directly
in the bargaining process. What is there left
to bargain about?. The letter makes it clear that
the penalty for failing to observe and
carry through the government desires will be a
financial holdback of 2% of their budget.
This, no college can afford. |
| 24. |
The
realisation that colleges are not as 'independent'
as their governing bodies and chief executives
believed they were, starts to sink in. |
| 25. |
The
spectre of 'performance related pay' had been
on the cards for some time. The matter of PRP
now comes out into the open. Boswell explicitly
states the governments desire to introduce it. |
| 26. |
PRP
is meant to pander to the interests of the self-interested.
It is conveyed as the best idea to come out of
'human resource management' since sliced bread
was conceived in the bakery trade. The latter
was convenient for the housewife but whose
convenience is served by the introduction of PRP? |
| 27. |
The
answer of course is The Governments. It conveniently
enables them to take control of pay in a most
direct way. PRP is also a useful mechanism
for dispensing with peoples services when they
fail to reach the targets set. Since they have
no role in the target-setting process, PRP will
inevitably become a treadmill for those who are
a party to it. |
| 28. |
Staff
are not meant to notice that PRP and 'personal
contracts' are inextricably linked. More
importantly they are meant to miss the point that
PRP will end the concept of 'the collective
agreement'. |
| 29. |
The
consequence of introducing PRP is therefore to
remove a 'principle purpose' of trade
unions: to collectively negotiate terms and
conditions. |
| 30. |
When
this stage is reached we will have exchanged the
strength of 'collectivism' for the
weakness of individualism. We will
also have handed our destiny entirely to the
Employers/CEF/Government. The individual has
no bargaining strength on his own. The staff in
FE are first divided then ruled. |
| 31. |
It
is hoped that since the central role of trade
unions will have been removed, trade unions will
wither and die. This is an objective that
sits well with known government intention and
the school of economic thought they adhere to.
Free market economics relies on the absence of
regulation. Unions have a nasty habit of regulating
labour costs via collective agreements. |
| 32. | Total
deregulation of the sector then is the objective.
It is a strategy that extends right across the public
sector, not just in FE. |
| 33. | The
plan is not yet fully unfolded. The FE sector must
be further rationalised. Draconian changes to
your terms and conditions are not enough. |
| 34. |
While
cost efficiencies related to contract flexibility
may help redress the public sector debt and make
room for tax concessions at some later date, the
sector needs to be reduced. The number of colleges
must be cut. |
| 35. |
What
better way to achieve this than to drive the less
financially buoyant ones on to the rocks. No one
will notice that the DfEE have rigged the charts.
After all, each institution has its own captain
to accept the responsibility for the navigation
failure. |
| 36. |
By
manipulating the funding methodology on a regular
basis, financial stresses can be introduced. Artificial
'market forces' will be difficult to identify.
There are ready made scapegoats leading the institutions
to a glorious demise. |
| 37. |
Reference
has already made to the need for a 20% reduction
in the number of colleges. This is close to
100 institutions. Is yours one of them? |
| 38. |
If you have been really wide awake, you may have learned a trick or two in understanding/interpreting any government statement. Whatever is said, assume that its' exact opposite is what is intended! Be sure that it will be someone else who will 'pick up the tab'. A well-placed scapegoat will be present when the excrement hits the fan! You will not see the government's backside for dust.These fundamental characteristics underpin all government strategies. Indeed they are strategies in themselves. |
| 39. |
Don't allow it to happen. Fight back through the COLLEGES' LEGAL FUND. It makes sense. |
DAVID EVANS January 1995