Social services chief under fire
Islington Tribune by MARK BLUNDEN Published: 10 November 2006
Social services chief under fire
A HIGH-RANKING Town Hall official who earns £100,000 a year has come under fire after wages for care staff were slashed by more than 50 per cent.Adult social services chief Gwen Ovshinksy (pictured on the left here) has been accused of being “uncaring” by unions over the fate of 83 care home workers who face having their wage packets slashed in half by a private contractor.Workers employed by council contractors Care UK face a cut in wages from £23,000 to £12,000 because the company says it is not making enough money from Islington. The workers will sign away their rights in exchange for one-off sweeteners of between £12,000 and £23,000.The Tribune asked Ms Ovshinksy (right) how she would react if her own wage packet was reduced by half – a question she dismissed as “inappropriate” and refused to answer. Ms Ovshinsky said, however, that she sympathised with the care workers. She added: “Clearly one sympathises with staff and understands the concerns they feel. “But clearly they have trade unions and themselves can also negotiate with Care UK. “It’s the job of the trade unions to negotiate with Care UK to see if they can increase the cash buyout or whatever else. That’s what trade unions are for.”One care home worker said: “Gwen Ovshinsky should be intervening in this issue. It’s as though the council are condoning our exploitation. I’m going to be living with a lot less money because of this.” In a rare interview, Ms Ovshinsky said it was the job of the trade unions – not the council – to negotiate a better deal with care home contractor Care UK.Ms Ovshinsky was criticised by unions for not stepping in to confront Care UK, which has a 25-year contract to run Islington’s residential homes for the elderly. But she explained it would be “inappropriate” for her to answer whether she would be happy to accept such a cut if it meant improving services.She added: “Clearly one sympathises with staff and feels the concerns they feel. They have trade unions and that’s their job to negotiate with Care UK to see if they can increase the offer.”Town Hall officials also stepped in and refused to allow Ms Ovshinsky to answer how she thought the 83 workers felt about the cuts, calling the question “emotive”.At the same time, the executive councillor who oversees the department told workers to “stop attacking the council”.Lib Dem Cllr John Gilbert said: “If you look at it in isolation it is a cut but it’s more than that. I would be expecting the trade unions to represent the Care UK staff and negotiate possibly a better deal.“But they are not council staff, they are staff of a contractor providing a service to the council.”Town Hall officials said it was wrong to question Ms Ovshinsky on the decisions over Care UK because it is elected councillors, not officers, who gave the final go ahead.Care UK says the borough contract is not cost effective and it will wages in line with the rest of the industry.Unison claims that the pay-off will represent around £1 million of taxpayer’s money. These cut, says the union, will force care workers to leave in droves and drive down the standard of the service in the residential homes.Following the Performance Review Committee at the Town Hall on Tuesday, Labour councillors are demanding to see details of the conversations between Care UK and social services that allowed the pay-off to happen.Ms Ovshinsky told the committee that although adult social services provide “excellent” services in a number of areas, it is “high performance but high cost”.The department has a £490,000 projected overspend this year from its £198 million budget.She told the meeting: “The council was approached by Care UK to negotiate a lump sum payment.“The council would look seriously at getting better value for money in any of its contractors.“We have no cause to be concerned about the quality of service provided by Care UK.”Care UK did not attend the committee, although chairman Paul Convery said they would be welcome to attend subsequent committees.
Social services chief under fire
A HIGH-RANKING Town Hall official who earns £100,000 a year has come under fire after wages for care staff were slashed by more than 50 per cent.Adult social services chief Gwen Ovshinksy (pictured on the left here) has been accused of being “uncaring” by unions over the fate of 83 care home workers who face having their wage packets slashed in half by a private contractor.Workers employed by council contractors Care UK face a cut in wages from £23,000 to £12,000 because the company says it is not making enough money from Islington. The workers will sign away their rights in exchange for one-off sweeteners of between £12,000 and £23,000.The Tribune asked Ms Ovshinksy (right) how she would react if her own wage packet was reduced by half – a question she dismissed as “inappropriate” and refused to answer. Ms Ovshinsky said, however, that she sympathised with the care workers. She added: “Clearly one sympathises with staff and understands the concerns they feel. “But clearly they have trade unions and themselves can also negotiate with Care UK. “It’s the job of the trade unions to negotiate with Care UK to see if they can increase the cash buyout or whatever else. That’s what trade unions are for.”One care home worker said: “Gwen Ovshinsky should be intervening in this issue. It’s as though the council are condoning our exploitation. I’m going to be living with a lot less money because of this.” In a rare interview, Ms Ovshinsky said it was the job of the trade unions – not the council – to negotiate a better deal with care home contractor Care UK.Ms Ovshinsky was criticised by unions for not stepping in to confront Care UK, which has a 25-year contract to run Islington’s residential homes for the elderly. But she explained it would be “inappropriate” for her to answer whether she would be happy to accept such a cut if it meant improving services.She added: “Clearly one sympathises with staff and feels the concerns they feel. They have trade unions and that’s their job to negotiate with Care UK to see if they can increase the offer.”Town Hall officials also stepped in and refused to allow Ms Ovshinsky to answer how she thought the 83 workers felt about the cuts, calling the question “emotive”.At the same time, the executive councillor who oversees the department told workers to “stop attacking the council”.Lib Dem Cllr John Gilbert said: “If you look at it in isolation it is a cut but it’s more than that. I would be expecting the trade unions to represent the Care UK staff and negotiate possibly a better deal.“But they are not council staff, they are staff of a contractor providing a service to the council.”Town Hall officials said it was wrong to question Ms Ovshinsky on the decisions over Care UK because it is elected councillors, not officers, who gave the final go ahead.Care UK says the borough contract is not cost effective and it will wages in line with the rest of the industry.Unison claims that the pay-off will represent around £1 million of taxpayer’s money. These cut, says the union, will force care workers to leave in droves and drive down the standard of the service in the residential homes.Following the Performance Review Committee at the Town Hall on Tuesday, Labour councillors are demanding to see details of the conversations between Care UK and social services that allowed the pay-off to happen.Ms Ovshinsky told the committee that although adult social services provide “excellent” services in a number of areas, it is “high performance but high cost”.The department has a £490,000 projected overspend this year from its £198 million budget.She told the meeting: “The council was approached by Care UK to negotiate a lump sum payment.“The council would look seriously at getting better value for money in any of its contractors.“We have no cause to be concerned about the quality of service provided by Care UK.”Care UK did not attend the committee, although chairman Paul Convery said they would be welcome to attend subsequent committees.
No comments:
Post a Comment