04 February 2005
The government's workforce 'remodelling' plans, part of its efficiency agenda, are an attempt to get more out of workers for less and could herald a return to job insecurity, unions warned this week.
As departments released another round of efficiency technical notes, outlining details of how the £21.5bn Gershon savings will be made, unions said the workforce reforms seemed to be more about saving money by weakening terms and conditions than efficiencies.
Both council workers and teachers will be subject to significant workforce 'remodelling', according to the notes.
In the case of teachers, there will be a national 'change programme' to ensure they are being used more efficiently, and a new tier of support staff.
A Centre of Procurement Performance, run within the Department for Education and Skills and due to open in April, will oversee part of this 'change programme' to influence 'more flexible contracts' for new and supply teachers.
John Bangs, head of education at the National Union of Teachers, told Public Finance that it was 'extraordinary' that what was being sold as reform could be introducing an element of insecurity into teachers' contracts.
'We could see the return of flexible and short-term contracts, which we fought against for years. Security has been a great factor in attracting new teachers from other professions. It is crystal clear that this government's drive is about savings, not efficiencies.'
Council workers will be subject to a 'national workforce remodelling framework'. This could lead to the introduction of unskilled workers or semi-professionals taking on more professional tasks – as seen in education with teaching assistants. This is likely to be more prevalent in the care sector, where care assistants could take on some of the tasks of social workers.
Heather Wakefield, head of local government at Unison, said she feared that workers would be expected to take on the roles of professionals without extra pay or training.
'We are concerned that the government just wants more for less. We've seen what's in the Spending Review so we know there's going to be no money for the positives in this package.'
She said the union would not enter into any remodelling plans without assurances of extra cash.
PFfeb2005
