The
dangers of throwing several thousand people from paid work into un-employment
should be obvious to anyone. The fact that a majority, although not all, of the
Remploy workers are disabled people should signal a further problem: Disabled
people who want to work, are more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled
people in all official statistics since records began.
For
example in 2011 the employment rate was 48.8% for disabled people compared to
77.5% for non-disabled people [1].
It is dangerous,
misguided and completely ludicrous to claim that all disability organisations and the disability
movement have decided that a new perverse way of supporting disabled people is to
make them unemployed and subject
to the ravages that
disabled people must endure under this government, as the Sayce report
suggests. See for example:
For those of us that
have spent years arguing for an equality agenda for disabled people the arguments
put forward in the Sayce report are dangerous, misguided and wrong.
Dangerous Partners
The Sayce report (‘Getting in, Staying in and
Getting on’) and the Tory desire to seemingly make the poorest most excluded
people further excluded and even poorer are a strange partnership, throw in
Miller, Unum and ATOS and we have a list of known enemies of disabled people - some
might wonder what Sayce is doing in such unpleasant company.
The Sayce/ Tory partnership produced a report
rumoured to have cost over 2 million pounds to:
1.
Explain how to save money
2.
Improve disabled Remploy workers lives’ by closing their factories
and seemingly removing their jobs.
3.
Ensure that if factories are sold off to buyers at knock down
prices, buyers have no enforcement in place to re-employ disabled workers
The basis of these
‘improvements’ are predicated on the notion that disabled people need to be
included in society - who would disagree?
However, inclusion for
disabled people and many non-disabled people in society now often means being
included in the growing army of the unemployed – for those disability
organisations that sign up to this notion, unemployment prevents segregation -
well that’s true, but maybe they should re-examine that particular version of
inclusion vs segregation? Maybe we need examine the other partners in this
game?
Is it a surprise that
Unum were involved in the Sayce report for example?
See here for
an explanation of why Unum have satisfied the status of an enemy of disabled
people and co-conspirators in welfare reform or the cuts agenda.
One organisation that
needs no introduction is ATOS. ATOS own the company KPMG. KPMG were contracted
by the Department of Works and Pensions too (cost currently unknown) – they
produced a report of their own in March 2012. The report entitled: Analysis of
Remploy Enterprise business and Employment Services’ A copy of the report
summary can be found here
However, the validity of this report may be in
doubt to the general reader as page two is filled with a list of disclaimers.
These include:
·
Nothing in this report constitutes a valuation or legal advice.
·
We have not verified the reliability or accuracy of any
information obtained in the course of our work.
·
In preparing our report, our primary source has been Remploy’s
internal management information and representations made to us by Remploy
Senior Management during the project. We do not accept responsibility for such
information which remains the responsibility of Management. Details of our
principal information sources are set out on page 4 and we have satisfied
ourselves, so far as possible, that the information presented in our report is
consistent with other information which was made available to us in the course
of our work in accordance with the terms of our Service Order. We have not,
however, sought to establish the reliability of the sources by reference to
other evidence.
Maybe Les Woodward’s analysis, which the DWP
didn’t pay millions for, might be more credible
Closing Remploy
factories will not save disabled workers from ‘Victorian-era segregation’. It
will wreck lives. [2]
An interesting postscript is that one of the
directors of Remploy is also a director of RADAR: ‘all in it together’? Labour,
(who incidentally closed a number of factories in 2008 so let’s not get too
teary eyed), have urged the Government to start the whole consultation again,
some claiming that it is a shambles. While Phil Davies, secretary of the GMB,
accused the Government of turning the consultation into a good old-fashioned
Klondyke gold rush” [3].
But there’s more, as argument after argument
presented in the Sayce report is knocked down and proved to have a false or
questionable basis.
Misguided Arguments
|
The ‘Independent’ Sayce
Report of June 2011 and the consultation that followed apparently showed that
a group of individuals, organisations, charities (and the insurance
company Unum) felt that segregated workplaces were outdated and as a result
disabled workers should be made redundant (see appendix for those involved in
consultation).
|
However, the process of
redundancies was underway as early as January 2011 six months before the 2 million Sayce report
began.
On 14 January 2011 Remploy HR
Director, Sue Butcher phoned the GMB National Secretary and informed him that
an announcement
was to be made on 18 January
2011.
No other information was given.
On 18 January 2011 the company
met with the trade unions and informed them that they were opening up a
voluntary redundancy programme and that consultation would start on 24 January
2011.
The company had already informed
the employees by letter that it was opening up a Voluntary Redundancy scheme.
No consultation had taken place with the trade unions. Seems they were not
important enough to be invited [4].
|
The Sayce report found people
working at Remploy factories who were quoted as saying they wanted ‘real’
jobs and the report ‘team’ claimed to have consulted in-depth with workers
|
The GMB union cannot seem to
find these quotees in the factories who wanted ‘real’ jobs, for some reason. It
has, however found 4 people who took part in what was presented as an in-depth
consultation with Remploy employees [5].
|
"The closure of the Remploy
factories is because they are segregated workplaces isn’t it?"
|
This is one simplistic argument
popularised by the Sayce report, however the Remploy factories do not employ
disabled people exclusively. In 2008, 29 factory sites geographically based
from Scotland to Cornwall
Given the other players in the
partnership –it all points to a ‘cuts agenda’ rather than any supposed moral
high ground on inclusion.
|
"The workers will find
alternative jobs in the open workforce?"
|
In 2008, 29 factory sites
geographically based from Scotland
to Cornwall
From the last round of Remploy
closures in the 1980s 85% of disabled ex-employees remain unemployed [6].
This was in a better economic climate than that of today.
Some committed suicide, many
threatened suicide and many experienced mental health issues, for those that
already had mental health issues these were exacerbated.
|
"The workers will be supported
when the factories close"
|
During 2007 and the early part
of 2008 the company gave promises of support for those leaving in the round of
closures carried out under the Labour government but history has shown that
very few of the 1,700 disabled people received even a phone call from Remploy
let alone any practical support [7].
In 2012 there is a community
pot of 1.5 million offered to charities and disabled peoples’ organisations to
support the workers into jobs by the DWP. This may explain the keenness of the
illogical ‘equality into unemployment arguments’ that some were producing but
it is unlikely that DPOs and the usual list of disability charities or
voluntary organisations can find jobs for ex-Remploy workers where they do not
exist, despite taking their 30 pieces of silver.
However, some are running the
much maligned mandatory work programs - so maybe that will the grand plan,
sanctions and all.
The full criteria for this fund
has been laid out in a Freedom of Information Request on the purpose of the
Community Support Fund (CSF) [8]
The CSF will offer
financial and non financial support to local disabled people’s user
led organisations (DPULOs) and voluntary sector organisations to
deliver support and services designed to meet the specific
needs of disabled Remploy
employees affected by the
announcements on the future of Remploy factories.
The intention is that the fund
will help to support affected Remploy staff to re-engage
with their local communities and help their transition from segregated sheltered employment to mainstream em-ployment.
It will be focussed around the geographical areas where affected Remploy
employees live and used to build the capacity of
local DPULO’s, 3rd sector and voluntary organisations and to
develop a range of activities and projects to help the move from sheltered
to main stream employment.
As well as a
modest amount of money being available
to support projects to help ex-Remploy employees, and
other local disabled people, get into work, training
or volunteering funding will be made available to help
create learning and
development activities to improve employment
opportunities.
opportunities.
Not really that
impressive. But impressive enough for emails asking organisations to ‘put their
applications in’ to go out to selected disability organisations and charities
24 hours after the closures were formally announced. These emails say nothing
about jobs but give examples of film clubs and
other types of support , none of which offer a paid job which is what the
factories offered. One option is to offer support in ‘choice and control’ where
was the choice and control for those workers that wanted to stay in their
paid jobs in the Remploy factories?
|
"The Remploy workers will be
better supported by Access to Work Schemes- money will be better spent on
Access to Work"
|
First, to qualify for Access to
Work you need to have a job or a documented firm offer of one: first hurdle.
The problems with Access to Work, including cost cutting under this government
are too numerous to go into here, but even the hallowed Access to Work cannot
match the percentage of support that was already being provided at the Remploy
factories. This is particularly the case with learning difficulties and mental
health issues.
Another point made in the Sayce
report is that access to work may be able to benefit disabled people with a
mental health conditions. Out of the 32,680 helped in the current year
only 460 have a mental health conditions. This is only 1.4% of all those
helped. Compare this to 131 employees in Remploy who have a mental health
conditions out of 2,692 employees which is 5% or 4 times higher.
When you look at another major
disability which is learning disability, out of the 32,680 helped by access to
work only 1,680 with this particular disability have been helped into
employment. This is just over 5% compared to the 462 disabled people out
of 2,692 who have a learning condition working in Remploy (17.2%) again over 3
times as high [9].
Never the less, its all been a
useful exercise to set up an expert panel on Access to Work run by the CEO
of Essex Coalition of Disabled People and to extend access to Work to young
disabled people enduring workfare type schemes [10]
|
"The workers in the factories
cost too much"
|
GMB argues that voluntary
redundancies increased the cost of each worker by £1,000 per worker. Management
has remained top heavy, apparently ineffectual and overpaid- and the continued
use of consultants such as KMPG have added to costs. These costs were lumped
together along with running costs to produce a misleading amount per worker [11].
Further: There are 3238
employees most of whom are disabled and who earn less than £16,000 per year.
The cost of travel for all employees has escalated to £2m, the cost of company
cars to £2.4m and the cost of car allowances to £1.1m; a total cost of £5.5m.
The figure of £138m losses for
the factory network is not true. We believe that if all the measures outlined
in the trade unions document are taken on board and implemented then the cost
of the factory network would be approx £35m per year.
Put another way when the profit
from sales is considered and taken into account the cost per disabled worker to
the State could be as low as £7,000.
When you also take into account
the fact that tax and insurance is being paid in and benefits are not being
paid out this figure could be substantially lower [12].
Alternatively: the cost of
unemployment which for a disabled person could be as much as £25,000 to £30,000
per year for each disabled person not working when you take into consideration
the revenue lost in tax and national insurance contributions the cost could be
higher. A disabled person who is not working will probably receive higher
benefits than a non disabled person. Housing benefits and careers allowances
are only the tip of the iceberg.
The unseen and unmonitored
costs start to mount up when you consider that a large number of disabled
people who were made redundant when Remploy closed 29 factory sites now have
severe health problems and the use of the NHS has greatly increased. We would
estimate that this cost could be as high as £20,000 for some disabled people.
|
"Figures in the Sayce report
show that factories never profit"
|
In May 2012 Profits were up
-Sally Kosky said: “According to the management’s own figures, the cost to
government is down by £16.5 million on the previous year – £2.5 million better
than budget” [13].
Also from May: A letter sent to
Remploy employees shows the business is doing well, Plaid Cymru has claimed.
The letter congratulates workers on a 12.2 per cent growth in sales and a 17
per cent reduction in costs. The Remploy factory in Swansea is
one of seven sites in Wales
Plaid Cymru’s equalities
spokeswoman, Lindsay Whittle AM, said:
“These figures prove that the UK
So it looks like they did
profit! The Swansea
|
"But Remploy wasn’t getting
Contracts was it?"
|
The more worrying aspect of the
company’s strategy on sales is the outsourcing of work and the lack of
tendering for public procurement contracts.
Letters from the NHS Forth Valley and Stirling
Council to the Minister show it is clear that Remploy has not shown interest in
tendering for large contracts that the company could have won.
It is also apparent that the
senior managers work within a very nice comfort zone; no aggressive sales
strategy exists and no stretching targets exist. The trade unions believe this
is part of the conspiracy to fail and the failure of the sales team is the
responsibility of the Chief Executive and the Board.
We understand that because of
the previous reduction in manpower that large amounts of work is being turned
away or outsourced. Birmingham
|
DPAC seems to be saying that
disability Charities and some DPOs are involved in some way that is not in
line with the principles of disability rights- this does not make sense
|
It depends on your idea of
disability rights; the old chestnut that keeps being trotted out is that
closing the factories is all about the right of disabled people to be included.
We ask\; what are the
ex-Remploy workers going to be included in exactly? Film clubs?
Where was their choice and
their rights in where they wanted to work and in keeping their paid jobs in the
worst recession since the 1930s?
|
"So who Gains?"
|
Cleary not the Remploy workers,
they are merely the collective sacrificial lamb on the altar of profit and gain
by others or those with vested interests if you prefer.
These include:
The beneficiaries in the
invited team, that made up the Sayce report.
The director who was on the
board of Remploy and RADAR (now DRUK: chief executive Liz Sayce) simultaneously
– there’s got be some gain there.
Those disability charities and
organisations who may gain from the community pot to support the Remploy
workers in their unemployment KPGM
(and ATOS who own KPGM) whose report has so many disclaimers making it another
gross waste of tax payers’ money UNUM, but we are not sure how they gain yet-their inclusion in the
Sayce consultation team must serve some purpose for them.
Remploy senior managers’
beneficiaries, of a 1.2 million bonus payment in 2012, when it was clear that
factories were earmarked for closure.
Those companies and disability
charities running work programs such as work for your benefits ‘work programs’
such as workfare.
Those that will further their
careers (and income) by sitting on ‘expert’ panels discussing Access to Work
(rather than paid jobs) in the wake of the closures Remploy itself by winning
contracts to deliver Access to Work for mental health users for every area
tendered before the closure deal was complete [16]
|
"Doesn’t all that show a
conflict of Interests?"
|
Yes, but this is Tory Britain
[1] Source:
Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2, 2011
[4] Written
evidence submitted by the GMB May 2011
[5] Sayce
Report Analysis July 20th 2011 GMB,UNITE, Community
[7] Written
evidence submitted by the GMB May 2011
[9] A new
strategy for the employment of disabled people: a new concept in the field of
employment – by Phil Davies, GMB National Secretary for Manufacturing Section
on behalf of the Consortium of Trade Unions
[11] Written
evidence submitted by GMB May 2011
[12] A
new strategy for the employment of disabled people: a new concept in the field
of employment – by Phil Davies, GMB National Secretary for Manufacturing
Section on behalf of the Consortium of Trade Unions
[15] Written
evidence submitted by the GMB May 2011
Appendix
List of those involved
in Sayce Consultation NB we are still waiting for a list of those involved in
the report itself.
The following
organisations submitted evidence to the review. Source: appendix
3 of Sayce report
|
1.
|
104 films
Limited
|
|
2.
|
A4e
|
|
3.
|
Acquired
Brain Injury Forum for
|
|
4.
|
Action
Group
|
|
5.
|
Asperger’s
Inc
|
|
6.
|
|
|
7.
|
BASE
|
|
8.
|
|
|
9.
|
British
Assistive Technology Association
|
|
10.
|
|
|
11.
|
|
|
12.
|
|
|
13.
|
British
Psychological Society
|
|
14.
|
|
|
15.
|
|
|
16.
|
Centre
for Mental Health
|
|
17.
|
Centre
Point
|
|
18.
|
Changing
Faces
|
|
19.
|
|
|
20.
|
Choices
and Rights Disability Coalition
|
|
21.
|
Elcena
Jeffers Foundation
|
|
22.
|
Employment
Services at
|
|
23.
|
|
|
24.
|
ERSA
|
|
25.
|
Finchdale
RTC
|
|
26.
|
Foundation
for People with Learning Disabilities
|
|
27.
|
Hands
Free Computing Ltd
|
|
28.
|
Hao2.eu
Ltd
|
|
29.
|
Headway
|
|
30.
|
Hertfordshire
Action on Disability
|
|
31.
|
Hillcrest
Branch
|
|
32.
|
|
|
33.
|
Inclusion
|
|
34.
|
Indigo
Dyslexia
|
|
35.
|
Ingeus
|
|
36.
|
|
|
37.
|
Key Ring
|
|
38.
|
KM
Furniture Ltd
|
|
39.
|
|
|
40.
|
Leicestershire
Centre for Integrated Living
|
|
41.
|
Low
Incomes Tax Reform Group
|
|
42.
|
Mencap
|
|
43.
|
Mental
Illness
|
|
44.
|
Mind
|
|
45.
|
Monmouth
People First
|
|
46.
|
National
Association of Deafened People
|
|
47.
|
NASUWT
(teachers union)
|
|
48.
|
Newco
Employment and Training
|
|
49.
|
North
Bank Forum
|
|
50.
|
Nottinghamshire
Deaf Society
|
|
51.
|
Papworth
Trust
|
|
52.
|
People
First
|
|
53.
|
Pluss
|
|
54.
|
|
|
55.
|
Queen
Elizabeth’s Foundation (RTC)
|
|
56.
|
Reed in
Partnership
|
|
57.
|
Rethink
|
|
58.
|
Royal
British Legion Industries
|
|
59.
|
Royal
|
|
60.
|
|
|
61.
|
|
|
62.
|
RNIB
|
|
63.
|
RNID
|
|
64.
|
Scope
|
|
65.
|
Scottish
Association for Mental Health
|
|
66.
|
Scottish
Autism Service
|
|
67.
|
Scottish
Independent Advocacy
|
|
68.
|
Sense
|
|
69.
|
Shout Out
|
|
70.
|
Signature
|
|
71.
|
|
|
72.
|
Social
Firms FRC Group
|
|
73.
|
St. Annes
(social firm)
|
|
74.
|
St Loye’s
(RTC)
|
|
75.
|
St
Mungo’s
|
|
76.
|
Sustainable
Hub of Innovative Employment for People with Complex Needs (SHIEC)
|
|
77.
|
The
Association of National Specialist Colleges
|
|
78.
|
The
Coalition of RTC Providers (covers all nine residential colleges)
|
|
79.
|
The Small
Business Consultancy
|
|
80.
|
Transition
Information Network
|
|
81.
|
Travel
Matters
|
|
82.
|
UNITE
|
|
83.
|
UNUM
|
|
84.
|
Vangent
|
|
85.
|
Visibility
|
|
86.
|
Vocational
Rehabilitation Association
|
|
87.
|
Welsh
Assembly Government
|
|
88.
|
Woman at
Wish
|
|
89.
|
Work Fit
|
Liz and the review team met with people from a
wide range of other organisations including, among others, People First,
National Centre for Independent Living, Disability Wales, Inclusion Scotland,
the Employers’ Forum on Disability, Remploy, the TUC, GMB, Social Policy
Research Unit, Centre for Mental Health, Disability Alliance, Sense, UNITE,
RNIB, Mencap, the Scottish Union for Supported Employment, a range of central
government departments, Essex Coalition of Disabled People and many more.
N.B we do not suggest that
those appearing on this list are all in favour of closure of the Remploy
factories, but the list is telling, more so because DPAC also responded to this
consultation and don’t seem to get a mention. The DPAC consultation response
can be found here
No comments:
Post a Comment