To see an electronic copy of our paper one-per-desk leaflet on "TUPE", on Cafevik, click here (a local version is here)
. This leaflet was produced for our Manchester Central Park and West Gorton sites.
Computer Weekly are running a survey in conjunction with Personnel Today that lets you take part in a “360 degree appraisal” of your HR department. We thought you might like to give your feedback.
Click here to access the survey online.
Due to the previous rep leaving Fujitsu, there is currently no UKCF Rep in Scotland. We expect a by-election to be held in the autumn.
Currently, a majority of the UKCF reps are Amicus members, as well as there being several reps who are in other unions. In the last elections, a majority of employees chose a candidate who declared their union affiliation as their first preference.
A UKCF rep who is a union member has the advantage of access to support, information and networks to help them carry out their role. A strong union presence on the UKCF promotes cooperation rather than conflict between the various employee representative structures.
Amicus is keen to ensure that we identify one candidate from Scotland who can have the backing of all the unions in the by-election. It would be a shame if the seat was taken by someone with an anti-union outlook because no member stood. Similarly, it would be futile for dozens of union members to stand against each other and fail to run an effective election campaign as a result.
If you are interested in standing as a union-backed candidate for the Scottish UKCF seat, please let us know. You can also get in touch if you want to suggest a colleague who you think would do the job well.
You can find out more about the UKCF on its own CafeVIK community, or on the web page Amicus set-up for our last election campaign. You can also speak to any of the current UKCF Reps if you want to discuss standing.
The employee reps on the company’s UK Consultative Forum (UKCF) have had problems publishing information since early last year. The company takes the view that it has a right to censor their reports. Unlike Amicus, the UKCF doesn’t have the channels to be able to communicate freely with employees in these circumstances.
Following the May UKCF meeting, we’re now pleased to report the publication of:
Minutes of the UKCF meeting 25-26 January 2006 Report of the Pay & Benefits Subgroup to the January UKCF meeting
Feedback on job changes and role codes
Report of the Communications Subgroup to the January UKCF
Incentive Schemes - Questions and Answers
Career Progression
Offshoring - report by UKCF employee representatives
The reps had to make some unwelcome edits to the documents before HR would allow publication, but at least something is available now. We hope employees are able to read between the lines.
For example, the UKCF still isn’t allowed to refer to the FSCF’s draft agreement on offshoring, despite the fact that Amicus published it some time ago.
The recent reorganisation involving the creation of the Solutions Group and the subsequent creation within Application Services of Application Development and Modernisation (and much else besides) has yet again highlighted how little the company thinks of what it sometimes calls its “greatest assets” - us.
In the past it may have seemed easiest to ignore reorganisations as they often led to no change to your desk or your job. However, many members are now feeling that the company has begun using reorganisations to try to make fundamental changes to jobs without consultation or negotiation. Sometimes there isn’t even adequate communication.
Most of us are flexible but when the company decides it has the right to impose on us what we do (i.e. flexibility) and where we do it (i.e. mobility) then something has gone sadly wrong. We are hearing reports that the latest reorganisation means a change in Professional Community role for some. This can lead to people being demoted or promoted without their knowledge. Amicus members can use the recently distributed “pay comparators” to compare median pay rates for their old and new role codes, helping them avoid potential problems before they occur. Non-members still run the risk of the company exploiting their lack of information.
A seemingly-innocuous change in role code can also result in your job content changing later – sometimes to a job you never wanted and didn’t realise you had accepted. Don’t forget that you risk having your objectives set and being appraised against the “role profile” for the role you are in.
If the company doesn’t need your job any more (i.e. your job is redundant) then the company should try to find suitable alternative jobs to offer you. If you can’t be successfully redeployed, then the harsh reality that you are redundant has to be faced. We have come across examples of managers who try to fool people into resigning to avoid paying for redundancy.
Jobs being redundant is a common occurrence, but the lack of proper process in Fujitsu often hides the fact from the employees (and managers) concerned. This makes it harder for employees to exercise their rights through redeployment.
The company should be setting out clearly the details of alternative jobs, so that employees can make informed choices. In the Reputation Programme, Fujitsu says “We communicate openly and honestly” – will HR practise what the company preaches?
Our Manchester group has been campaigning to get clear processes around redeployment and discussions with the company have led to a draft “Annex 1” agreement which you can read on CafeVIK.
The reps on the UKCF have also been raising related matters – see “Feedback on job changes and role codes” on CafeVIK.
The company has prepared draft policies on “diversity” (i.e. Equal Opportunities) and “recruitment”.
Amicus published them on CafeVIK and invited comments from members.
Our newsletter on 22nd May used an example to illustrate that bonuses are worth far less than pay rises. Nonetheless, the news that Sharing In Success is paying out again is welcome.
Because we already have union recognition there, Amicus has figures for a large part of the Manchester workforce:
Once again, the “incentive” schemes are anything but an incentive for strong individual performance. Now the results are beginning to come out, it is apparent that good performers are getting very high or very low bonuses, depending on which department / contract they happen to have worked on.
Some bonus targets were still “To Be Confirmed” months after the end of the year during which employees were meant to meet them. Plan rules say that targets should be notified to participants “by, or as soon as practicable after 1 April 2005”. Did whoever set the targets a year late meet their objectives? They certainly made it hard for others to do so.
We’re hearing most discontent from Application Services. Firstly, everyone’s bonuses were sharply reduced because the unit didn’t raise productivity by 8%. Few individuals feel they could have influenced this significantly. Secondly, we’re also hearing reports that some AS staff had their bonuses reduced further because they failed to hit their “utilisation” target. For example, is this fair for those who say they were not utilised because their work was offshored to Zensar in India? If Fujitsu are paying Zensar to do the work as well as paying its own staff to sit on the bench (or support Zensar) as a result, could this explain the failure to raise productivity?
Many of the anomalies, errors and inconsistencies in the calculation of utilisation still appear unresolved.
Many people are now asking why they should ever put in effort above and beyond the minimum. Even in a year when the company exceeded stretch targets many still didn’t get a decent pay rise or a decent bonus.
All this goes to emphasise the importance of raising basic pay, rather than relying on bonuses that can come and go on a management whim. The paltry rises (including many 0%’s) given to employees across the UK do nothing to address the historic low-pay of Fujitsu employees.
--CEO name removed--’s announcement on 2nd June (“FUJITSU SERVICES RESULTS FOR 2005/6 AND SHARING IN SUCCESS”) invited employees to email him via the Company Announcement mailbox with any comments. Amicus encourages employees to take advantage of all requests to feed back their views to the company.
Our June branch meeting heard a speaker from the Keep Our NHS Public campaign explain many of the issues currently affecting our health service.
There is currently a threat of 800-1200 job losses in the Pennine Trust which covers North Manchester, Bury, Oldham and Rochdale. Two of the events the campaign is organising to oppose the job cuts are:
Public meeting:
7pm, Wednesday 14th June
North Manchester General Hospital
Postgraduate Centre (near main gate on Delaney’s Road)
Demonstration:
Assemble 11:30am, Saturday 24th June
Victoria Station, Walkers Croft
The next meeting of the Amicus Greater Manchester IT Branch is:
6pm-7:30pm, Thursday 6th July
Upstairs, Hare & Hounds pub, Shudehill, Manchester city centre, M4 4AA
[Near the Shudehill Metrolink station and the spiral ramp to the Arndale car park]
As well as dealing with branch business, there will be time for reports and discussion on workplace issues.
All branch members are welcome to attend.
Though the company hasn’t resolved many of the problems with the management of health & safety we’ve been raising, the pressure is getting some results.
A Health & Safety Committee has now been set up covering Manchester, to monitor, review and potentially improve health, safety, welfare and the working environment. It will not be dealing with day-to-day H&S issues, but will be more of an overview.
The committee has been set up at Amicus’ request, and is chaired by --name removed-- (Health & Safety Services manager). Committee members have been appointed from management, Site Facilities and the Health & Safety representatives.
A new Hazard Reporting form is in place – please use it. It would be helpful if you also copied your local Health & Safety Rep on your report.
Safety issues are being discussed by --names of top managers removed-- at a meeting on 19th June, and your H&S Reps have been promised an update the following day.
In March, HR broke our recognition agreement by imposing the “bog standard” pay deal on many of us in the bargaining unit. This led to many getting 0% or very low rises. After their “bogus ballot” backfired, HR then broke the agreement again by failing to continue the pay talks at the next stage.
The pressure is finally beginning to pay off, and talks finally resume on Monday 12th June. However, your reps still believe the company will deliberately delay the pay rise in the hope that employees will agree a third-rate deal on recognition, redundancy, redeployment etc.
The majority of us have still had no pay review at all. Once the company agrees a deal it will be backdated to 1st April. Our leaflet on 5th April explained many of the issues.
Those who had the “bog standard” deal imposed will want the company to ensure they don’t lose out in the long run either.
A number of you have been asking whether the delay to the pay review will also impact our bonuses. There is no reason why it should, as the bonuses are based on your pay last year (31st March).
Given the company’s fantastic results, there would seem no legitimate reason for people not getting good bonuses as well as pay rises.
The talks with the company, facilitated by ACAS, are continuing. We had hoped that the company would issue a joint statement about the progress, but sadly they aren’t yet confident to take this step. Amicus has published its own report on progress on CafeVIK.
As you will see, the bizarre drafts that the company provided before the talks started have been set on one side, and we have continued work from where we left off in January as a result of the company’s change in direction.
The talks next week will focus on the vital issues around redeployment and redundancy and a further update will follow.
Only the unity and determination of the workforce has got us this far – the campaign remains key to ensuring that the talks stay on track. Recruitment is going well, but we still need every member to be playing their part.
Is everyone in your area wearing their pass on an Amicus lanyard?
Have you asked your colleagues to join the union?
Can you encourage your colleagues to look at the report on the talks?