Elect the new Branch Officers – the main Branch Officers for the last 2 years aren’t seeking re-election (including the key posts of Branch Secretary and Branch Chair).

It’s important to hear from candidates and for you to elect officials you’ll have confidence in for the next year

There will be Unison members that were on the Scottish Council and Businesss units at each AGM venue

The idea will be to get through the business items swiftly to allow an informal question and answer session to discuss any issue you’re concerned about and that you think your union should be doing something about or can help with.

----- so come and ask or at least attend and listen! -----
 

top of page  home

Branch meeting - what now?

Branch Meeting - Some notes from February meeting

Ballot Result

There was agreement that we must focus energies on the key issues of detriment and salary harmonisation
 
The Branch will also have to give consideration to an Industrial Action Strategy after employer consultation has taken place.

Scottish Water Council Restructuring

Ken Seward has redrafted a proposal for a new structure and has forwarded this to the other TUs.

 It is hoped that a constructive discussion can take place about this structure and about a new constitution for the Joint Trade Union Group.
A draft constitution has also been sent to the other TUs. The draft constitution is to be circulated to stewards.

Terms and conditions problems!

Unison is currently taking up flexible working , stand-by buy –out, expenses policy , increased travel policy bonus at several forums with the management.

click here for full minutes
 

top of page   home

Members have Responsibilities too

Your Responsibilities

History has shown that unions have always had to stand up to unreasonable employers – it’s only by showing we’re supporting one another in the difficult times that the union will get anywhere.

You will be asked at these AGM’s to elect new key officials - please remember to do your bit where you can - and give them your support.

Please also try make your complaints constructive
 
What’s happening to you in the work place is important - so if there’s problems let us know and don’t suffer in silence!
 

top of page   home

Privatisation threat

Unison Answers Privatisation Threat

Has the WIC has let slip his real agenda on privatisation?

The Water Industry Commissioner (WIC) was recently quoted in “The Scotsman” saying Scottish Water may have to consider privatisation to raise funds for investment.

Also mentioned in the article was some senior management figures being to be open-minded about the possibility of a future privatisation.
 
Unison’s Dave Watson (Utilities Organiser) has written to the Scotsman with strong argument to put into perspective the plight of the water industry in Scotland

click here to view Dave’s letter
 

top of page   home

Meeting Scottish Water

Meeting with Scottish Water

Following our ballot on industrial action a meeting has been arranged for 17th March for Unison to meet with Scottish Water with a view to pursue negotiated changes to the comp & bens package.

The other unions

Unison full time officer Ken Seward has written again to the other Trades Unions about a joint trade union initiative. However, he has to date had no luck whatsoever in getting any support from the other Unions Full Time Officials.

We’ve been made aware that Scottish Water have invited the other unions along to this meeting

 however, if there’s not going to be support from the other unions we will seek to hold separate talks on the issue on our own on the 17th.
 

 top of page   home

Your Comments
 

Is it legal?

Further to the prompt in the latest issue of Reservoir Bogs, I'd first of all like to thank Unison for the work they have undertaken to date in trying to secure the best deal for the membership.

I personally feel that things cannot be taken any further via the partnership route and it is time to consider other possible avenues for action
 - - - e.g. obtaining advice from experts in Employment Law (has a mandate actually been secured to push the comps & bens through?)

 seeking thoughts and possible support from MSPs, MPs, etc. (can they influence things?)

 - Just a few thoughts
(by email)
 
It was legal advice that showed that Scottish water were in breach of their agreement re implementing Comp & Bens – see the article and website for campaigning items

Unison Full Time Officials (1)
 
So, SW have enforced the new T&C. Instead of shouting at the sidelines, our union need to take responsibility for their part in this fiasco and learn lessons.

Unison, like the other unions, have been out manoeuvred by SW management at every turn. Taking part in this so called partnership boosted their egos and gave them, the false impression, that they had a say in the future.

Our union is a comparatively well off branch. From now on, instead of relying on well intentioned stewards who have proven that they are no match for SW management, we need to employ professional negotiators.

 I, for one, would rather see my union dues paying for the protection of my (already diminished) conditions as opposed to paying for the running of pointless Unison campaigns and courses for individuals.

If our branch do not announce some changes in approach soon, I think I will have to leave Unison. I can erode my T&C as well as they can.
(by email)

Unison Full Time Officials (2)

Yet again, Unison fees have been increased. Could somebody please explain, why it was necessary to increase the fees, considering it was not so long ago that our fees went up.

Has the fees went up to allow stewards and reps to go on their jollys? There are a lot of disgruntled members on the verge of coming out of the Union.

 At a time, when lots of employees are losing out on the comp & bens, we feel, at our office there has been no full time representation, also a lack of information feed back considering the amount of meetings our union has with management.
(by email)

Please see separate articles on this page, and in the latest newsletter on full time representation; we’ll try harder on getting feedback to you – but remember – unions do go through difficult times with unreasonable employers – it’s at these times that members need to show support and do their bit where they can.

Newsletter Title

Should “Reservoir Bogs” bite the dust?

Here’s all your comments so far – all 3 of them!

1. Insulted

Also could you correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the publisher of Reservoir Bogs (and that term is an insult to everyone, no matter how light hearted you try to be) is a retired former employee, who does not get paid for his efforts. I sincerely hope that you print this in the next, dare I say it, Reservoir Bogs bulletin.

Why not rename it "Scottish Water Branch of Unison" Bulletin - simple and straightforward.

Wish we knew why you’re insulted – you don’t say - most Unison branches welcome retired members help – if they can find anyone daft enough to do it!
 
2.Who Cares?

Why on earth are there members who care what the newsletter is called!
 
Will the enforced new T&C, SWS and paltry bonuses to contend with, some people need to get a grip on the realities of working in SW and stop focusing on such trivia.

 As long as we get some information from Unison, who cares what the title of the letter is.

 – does the silent majority think so too?

3.Title ideas

 How's about Reservoir Voice or The Leakie Tap or Liquid News or The Wash?

 – any other ideas?

So it’s open to you whether we change to another title or keep what we’ve got – so what do you think?
 

top of page   home

January 2004 News
Unison try to Negotiate - Management Don't Want to Listen
A Second Ballot to Get Members View

Unison try to Negotiate - Management Don't Want to Listen

It’s not a really Scottish Water Council decision – Management are now set to impose the "Comp and Bens" package.

At the last Council meeting on 18^th December Unison’s FTO (on behalf of the Branch) requested that that it wasn’t implemented and the package looked at again. As the Unison representatives mandate from their members was to reject the package - Scottish Water then made it clear that they were taking the result of the total "Comp & Ben" Ballot as a green light from its employees to undertake the changes.

Partnership rules are clear – There must be consensus in The Scottish Water Council for changes to be made. There wasn’t consensus with regard to comp and bens.

If management impose this package they will be in breach of the partnership agreement.

Members should see the latest issue of the Branch Newsletter "Reservoir Bogs" for full details


A Second Ballot to Get Members Views

A letter is being sent to all members with details of the ballot to seek your views on the next step to get this unfair comp & bens package sorted out

top of page

December 2003
The Scottish Water Ballot Result
 Unison's consultative ballot result
 members latest thoughts and comments
members comments on comp & bens

The Scottish Water Ballot Result

- Here's the figures-
All the Trade Unions - no vote 1347
yes vote 1003

majority of 344 against

Non Trade Unions - no vote 366
yes vote 687

majority of 321 for
overall - no vote 1347
yes vote 1003

majority of 7 for
The figures were announced at a Scottish Council meeting on Thursday 18th December

No decision was taken

the unions took the figures away to consider the result.

Unison senior branch officers are meeting on Friday 19th December to formulate a view on the outcome.
A meeting of all stewards is to take place on Tuesday 6th January
Unison will speak to the other unions to try to reform the joint trade union committee (JTUC) which used to meet before Scottish Council Meetings.

However Unions United (the other three unions) are also meeting on Friday. Although we're the biggest union - Unison wasn't invited - again

isn't solidarity wonderful!

top of page

Unison's consultative ballot result

Here is the result of the consultative ballot on Scottish Water's
"Comps & Bens." package.

No Vote 581

Yes Vote 220

Turnout of 55.8%

This represents a No vote of 72.5% of those who voted.

UNISON will now take this result to the Scottish Water Council meeting on 18 December. Our intention will be to try to resolve a problem by being prepared to negotiate alternative proposals.
top of page home

top of page

members latest thoughts and comments

Reaction to Jon's Christmas greetings

Would some-one please point out to Jon at the next SW Council meeting that sending this sort of message just after his organisation, by a majority of 7, has decided to reduce the income of this family just after Christmas and then see it decline in line with inflation over the next 2 1/4 years with no prospect of any work or effort, no matter how good being rewarded during that time, is really not welcome. I don't want his thanks I'd rather have the terms and conditions of my contract honoured
 top of page home

Not such a fair Ballot or result?
 
Just seen the result of the vote. 7 votes in an organisation this size is going to be taken as a mandate? Did SW say it was 50% of the vote rather than 50% of the work force before they sent out the ballot? I know of at least two people who have taken part in previous so called 'secret ballots' only to find that their manager was able to confront them at a later stage over their 'supposed' secret' opinion. Many people still fear this lack of secrecy and it would be interesting to see how the 27 ballot papers were spoiled. I know of many employees who were visible upset to see their employee number alongside their ballot number and the suspicion is that some may have deleted this number to preserve annonimity but spoiled their paper in the process.

It was interesting to note that colleagues who are due to leave shortly and won't suffer the consequences of this below inflation pay deal over the next 21/2 years were able to vote this detriment on to those of us who are staying. Do we know how many of these there may be?

The threat that this was the only deal and there was no more money for employees certainly prejudiced the vote and was actually a lie. It turns out that senior managers, despite being employees are not part of this and their budget has no such limits. There is money out there just not for non senior managers.

Do we know how many people in the consultation groups were actually going to suffer detriment as a result of this deal? Where any of those people, looking at a pay cut after Christmas, were included in the consultation? If not how can this consultation be said to represent the whole company. Is this partnership? Equally, who many people in the groups who agreed the new car and expenses policy that included the worst conditions from all the old policies, were going to be affected by them? (Maybe that is why we have a car policy that says SW can take your car off you for any reason at any time (even if you own it!)) Maybe next time we vote for the council we will realise that these people are not just there to be consulted but will decide our financial futures and can do so without bothering with the people who elected them.

The biggest shock over this whole process is that having joined the water industry from a private firm a couple of years ago that every part of my individual contract can be changed without my consent. It means you can't trust anything you are given in the future and a company you can't trust........

The other point would be is the double standards practised by SW. SW was meant to bring together one company but that company is really now only the senior managers in their nice Crieff yacht whist the rest of us are a necessary evil who stay in the old Crieff barge and try to keep it afloat.

Other anomilies. My role was decided by my manager, but he can't give me a copy of it. The group that decided the banding I will go into is annonymous and we do not know what factors they considered. The extra responsibility pay policy has not yet been written (how can it be said we were fully informed to take such a vote?). 20% of my SW savings bonus next year is decided on my managers performance but I am not allowed to know what his targets are (How can I contribute?) Surely, if the targets are in the interest of the company we should all be aware of them? The only reason not to is because some of them depend on me paying more for the priviledge of working for SW. This is not partnership. We all need to have a stake in seeing SW succeed. The employee stake is declining as senior managers' rise. This is not the way for SW to succeed unless the non senior managers have no part in the SW future.

I have never been a political person until now, I suppose that is the effect of being treated as if I (My hopes and my future) are of no consequence.
 

top of page

Older Items (October - November 2003)

members thoughts & comments (November)
 (includes vote no before its too late, Management bullxxx & was george right?)
 your comments on Comp & Bens
 Branch Executive Minutes of 14th November - (HR managers present!)
 Jon Hargreaves Memo - Unison Response
 (more reasons to vote no!)
 Unison's Water Campaign
 Branch Secretary - why vote no
 losing overtime with new comps and bens
 Decision on Partnership delayed
Compensation And Benefits - Vote No
Why Two Ballot
No Compensation & very little benefits
Does this affect me this time
Clear as Mud

November News

Remember - Vote NO!
   
  Remember to VOTE no in Scottish Waters ballot too!
   
   NO - to unequal salaries
   NO - to loss of conditions
   NO - to cash bribes
   NO - to open ended flexibility
   
   Help Unison fight for a fairer deal


Jon Hargreaves Memo - Unison Response

Comp & Ben – The new “Compensation Review”.
more reasons to vote no!
Dear All,

Having been approached by a number of your Shop Stewards who have raised with me their serious concerns about the lack of detail that has been provided by our employer, in respect of the introduction of a new of a “Compensation Review” as part of the “Comp & Ben” package. The Branch would like to bring to your attention the following information:

Having read the recent statement put out by our employer, it falls to your Branch, to once again bring to you the “devil in the detail”. And in doing so, point out once again the reasons why we are unfortunately unable to recommend (unlike our other Trades Union Colleagues) this new “Terms & Conditions” package to you.

The recent memo and e. Mail sent to you all from Dr. J. Hargreaves, makes the following comforting “broad brush” statement:

“Any individual who can demonstrate that they have incurred overall personal detriment to their contractual earnings in excess of the £1000”compensation on offer. Can refer this to the Scottish Water Council Sub–Group consisting of the Management and Trades Union representatives for review”.

This statement unfortunately, does provide the important criteria that you will be required to meet in order to actually get a “review”.

Given this unfortunate lack of clarity, it has become apparent that the Branch needs to both make you aware of the criteria you would have to meet to get a review. And to provide you with the background surrounding to this totally new proposal.


On Friday the 14th of November two Senior Members of Scottish Water HR Dept attended at a Unison Special Branch Meeting held in Stirling. This meeting was specifically called in order to allow our Employer to come and lay before us their answers to a couple of the major issues that your Stewards had previously highlighted that they were unhappy about within the proposed “Comp & Ben” package.

Towards the end of the meeting, when it was apparent that many of the Unison Shop Stewards present still remained sceptical. The principal HR manager attending, then brought to the attention of those present, the fact that our employer did to some degree recognise our collective concerns about our members, acceptance of the new “Comp & Ben “ package and the potential loss this would cause a large number of our members.
We were then informed that as a means of helping to allay our fears (and provided the Branch would agree to support recommending the “Comp & Ben” package). That an individual employee “Review” procedure was on offer for those who suffered financial loss over and above the sum of £1000.
Those present were then handed a copy of the “criteria” that a member of staff would have to meet, in order to have this proposed detriment review.

They were as follows:

1. Detriment must be wholly attributable to the implementation of the “Comp & Ben”.

2. The individual must be able to demonstrate quantifiable loss against contractual pay.

3. The loss must reflect the total impact of the Comp & Ben package, not single elements.

4. The demonstrated loss must be more than £1000 and not provided for under any other compensatory arrangements.
5. If a loss can be demonstrated, any extra payment will be calculated using “Spend to Save “ criteria (i.e. a two year payback) applied elsewhere within the “Comp & Ben package.


The consensus of those Stewards present, having read this document. Was that, even if you did eventually manage to meet all of these “conditions” and were able to clearly demonstrate a financial loss in excess of £1000. Then the outcome of that was, that SWC sub-group would be allowed to review your case and then perhaps (or perhaps not) agree any additional payment. Once the Sub Groups review decision was taken and the amount (if any) set, then this was as far as a member of staff could take this matter.

The Branch will leave each of you to decide, whether or not, you think this new “Review Guarantee” is actually going to assist you in getting adequate compensation from our employer if by accepting the package on offer you end up with a substantial financial loss.

The Branch Stewards at the time saw little transparency or certainty in this new review process. And based on this and the other concerns that still remained with them in respect of the wide ranging detriments to come from proposed “Comp & Ben package. Chose not to change their opinion in respect of previous recommendation to you, that you reject the package on offer.

We were then informed at that time, “that if we were not as a Branch prepared to alter our recommendation to our membership. That this proposed review procedure would be withdrawn”.

Those (twenty plus) Shop Stewards and Unison Officials that attended at the meeting in Stirling, when this condition was made clear to them. Are now therefore, amazed find this “Review” being touted by our C.E.O as being one of the cornerstones of the “ Comp & Ben “ package.
They are also of course surprised at its late inclusion at this stage, given that it was never previously mentioned by any of the Managers, at any of the original “Comp & Ben” presentations, which had already been given to all of the staff.


We as a Branch, would point out that have never been involved in the framing this new “Review Policy”. And were, prior to it’s presentation to us our Stirling meeting, not even aware of it’s existence.

We are now therefore unsure how this item has now become part of official “Comp & Ben” arrangements. But it now seems that it has!


You are now in possession all the facts in respect of this proposed “detriment safeguard”.

The Branch now leaves you to decide whether or not you feel happy to accept this new “Review” guarantee, when you return your Comp & Ben ballot slips to both the Branch and to Scottish Water.


For and on behalf of Unison Scottish Water Branch

James S. Anderson.
Branch Secretary.
 top of page home


Unison's Water Campaign
It’s not just Scottish Water that needs to be convinced
Unison are campaigning to raise awareness with
Ministers and civil servants who directly influence decisions
MSP’s, T&E Committee and political parties
General public to build pressure on the above

see Unison Water Campaign page for more information on this and other activities
top of page home

Branch Secretary - why vote no?
Dear Member,

By now you should have all received a copy of the latest Branch's Newsletter, ( Reservoir Bogs) which seeks to highlight to you your elected representatives serious concerns in respect of the new "Comp & Ben " proposals.

I do hope that the information contained within the newsletter, has helped most of you on clearing up the Branch's stance on why we think you should reject this "new deal".

If it hasn't, then please raise anything that you are still unclear about with your local Shop Steward or failing that, get in contact with any of your Unison Scottish Water Council Representatives.

The Branch Executive has now (on two separate occasions) met to discuss these new "Comp & Ben" proposals. And has after serious and lengthy debate remained in favour of it's original decision to recommend that you reject them.

As you can imagine given this stance by your Executive our stewards have been coming under some very heavy pressure both from the other Unions who have already accepted these new proposals. And the Management who have been instrumental in formulating these "money saving" proposals.
Needless to say there's been plenty of comment as to the "unreasonableness" of the Branches position on this issue, but we are elected to look after our members interests and not to agree any major changes that badly affect our members just because everyone else thinks there O.K.

Some people have even been saying that we have left the " Partnership" . This of course not true , but in order for any partnership to truly work, all partners have to agree the way forward. In this instance we are unfortunately ,(based on the serious long term detriments contained within these proposals) unable to come to an agreement with our other partners.

That does not mean to say that Unison are unwilling to look at new and hopefully more acceptable proposals in the future.

The Branch Executive is conscious of the importance of this issue and is now about to directly seek your views on this matter, by means of a members only, "Consultative Ballot" (which will be sent to you this week).

Please support your Union by reading the accompanying information that comes with the ballot paper and then completing the ballot paper and returning it to our Resource Centre in Stirling as soon as you can.

Based on what our members decide in this ballot will determine the Branches continuing position. It will also give us a clear cut mandate from our members when embarking upon any future discussions (within the present Partnership arrangements) with Scottish Water.

Only by our "Partners" being made clear about your strong feelings on this issue, will we be able bring this entire issue back to the partnership table, for truly meaningful discussion.

So please make sure that you complete and return not only Unisons Ballot, but that you complete "Scottish Waters" own Comp & Ben Ballot paper when you receive it, so that your employer knows what you really think of this new deal !

Remember if you don't return a S.W. ballot paper, that counts as a vote for acceptance of the Terms and Conditions on offer, so if you don't like them, make sure you register your vote!

Finally, can I add, that as with any major change in "Terms and Conditions" the devil is in the detail.

And in this lack of detail, along with what can only be seen as a very poor long term financial package tin this offer, that has led the Branch reluctantly to this position.

Our employer has made it clear that there is no new money to fund this substantial change and has made it clear to everyone that there will be "winners and losers",something that Unison has constantly opposed .
We have time and again made it clear that we could only support the "Comp & Ben" if there was no overall detriment to our members ". Deciding to rob Peter to pay Paul does not meet this important requirement !

Our employer when we first intimated our position attended at a Branch Executive meeting at which they offered to provide an "appeals procedure". But when we read their proposals "they had more strings than the R.S.N.O"as they say. Nevertheless the offer of this seriously conditional procedure, ( which was subsequently withdrawn by our employer) clearly highlighted to us that our employer was aware that there were going to be people who were going to suffer severe financial detriment under the new "Comp & Ben",. However, our employer had made sure that even if this was the case they would have to bring all sorts of qualifying criteria to the table, before they would consider looking at the detriment and possibly deal with the issue. This arrangement was clearly unacceptable to the executive and was rejected.


Based on the present package on offer the vast majority of our members will (in the opinion of your Executive) suffer financial detriment in the long term if this new package is brought in.
So given this, if your getting a pay increase based on the proposals, someone else is getting a pay cut to help fund it!

It's easy for individuals just to focus on the "carrots" on offer, but I would caution you all, that there is no such thing as a "free lunch. And as I am sure you are all aware, there have in the past been some seemingly appetising dishes offered to us in the Water Industry, only for us to find at a later date, that we all ended up with some serious financial "heartburn" .

On behalf of the Branch, I therefore ask that you support your Shop Stewards position on this vitally important matter and vote in both ballots to reject this present "Comp & Ben" package.


For and on behalf of Unison Scottish Water Branch.


Jim. Anderson, Branch Secretary 1230hrs 24/11/03

top of page home

Members latest comments (November)
(names removed to protect innocent)

Management Bullxxxx 1

How will flexible working operate?
Flexible working operates on the basis of trust between employees and management. In essence there is no recording of hours or clocking in and out. There is no “building up” of time to be taken back minute-for-minute at a later date. Instead, the focus must be on work outputs rather than time spent at a desk or particular work location. It is about being reasonable regarding arrangements for time off – with agreement of both employee and manager.

Management Bullxxxx 2

Will I get the long service award if I have 25 years service prior to 1st January 2004?
All employees who achieve 25 years’ service after 1st January will be eligible for the award. Employees who have between 25 and 30 years service at 1st January 2004 will receive the award when they reach 30 years service."
Looks like anyone who has over 25 years service will still have to wait to the 30 years.

Scottish water looked at this unfair condition because of the amount of complaints and came up with this fair solution
aren't they just wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Compensation and Benefits - vote no before its too late

The stated aim of the Compensation & Benefits project was "to produce a consistent and fair package of terms and conditions to all staff in Scottish Water."
There is little or no evidence to support this stated aim.
In their current form the terms and conditions are not consistent and
they are not fair.
 
Long Service Award

a correspondent recently asked the following question:
"Will I get the long service award if I have 25 years service prior to 1st January 2004?"
The answer to that question is "NO. If you have already passed 25 years service you don't qualify and you'll have to wait until you attain 30-years service."

How about that for recognition of loyal service?

It is clearly not consistent or fair - Vote NO.

37 Hour Week

Within Scottish Water there are a number of staff with contracted hours of less than 37-hours per week. If the 37-hour week is implemented those members of staff will see their working time increase by between 2% and 5.7%.
 
Those members of staff are not being offered a pro-rata rise in their hourly rates of pay. Consequently, those members of staff are being expected to accept a pay cut of between 2% and 5.7%.
In any event, this substantially reduces (or completely wipes out) the 5% that's being offered for acceptance of the Comp' and Ben' package.
There is absolutely nothing "consistent" or "fair" about that- VOTE NO
 
Lack of Detail
 
There is little or no detail on the mechanisms that will be used to administer the new Terms and Conditions.
To accept new Terms and Conditions without understanding their long-
term implications is madness.

Vote NO - before it's too late.

Comp and Bens detriment

There is an issue with Flexible Working which hasn't been flagged up. Members are concerned that they will lose the right to one flexiday per month and are concerned about the lack of clear guidelines. There is a fear of losing hours as a result of poor time recording and local manager inflexibility. There are inconsistencies in the East at present with Labs being refused full or half days off while other functions are more flexible.

I also think that this is a bigger issue for manual workers as the 7-7 working will inevitably result in two shifts being set up (e.g. 7am - 3pm and 11am - 7pm), allowing management to cover the 12hr period without a requirement for call-outs or overtime. This will mean a loss of earnings for manual workers that they perhaps should be compensated for.

I note that 2.6% is being applied to the bottom third of bands D, E and F. This means that staff in the middle of F (say £14500) will receive a lower percentage increase (1.24%) than someone in the bottom third of D (say £20000 - receiving 2.6%). So much for dealing with the problems of low pay.

(By email)

More Comp and Bens detriment

Those people placed at the top of their band, do they get the 5% over the next 18 months? Part of the 5% is the 2% of the 2003/4 salary agreement, will this also be lost to those on the top of their band?

What is to happen to those employees who are on WOSW protected salaries and more importantly in my case D&G protected salaries? If they ignore these protection agreements what is there to stop SW coming back to pilfer more of our terms and conditions?

What happens to employees who refuse to sign their new terms and conditions?

Having talked to several people in my area there seems to be a number of people affected by this package. I can't believe that onl;y 117 employees are adversely affected by these terms wrt salary.
What is the true picture? Perhaps UNISON should find out from its members who is to lose out rather than be spoon fed by SW

PS if put to the top of the band and not able to take 5% on the band limit I stand to lose £ 4550 pa which should reap a buy out of 18 200, but oh no!!

The buy out figure I’ve been supplied with does not include the 5% and is calculated at 10 476. So not only are we shafted on salary but also the buy out package. myself to the tune of 7724, which ain't buttons.

The other example i have applies to the admin girls in office, they are on 17,349 and are in band F, if you add the 5% this takes them to 18310.95, they will go to the top of the band and get a one off non-consolidated payment £716.45.

This means basically that the pay increase they will get is 0.87%, a ridiculous sum. They will also not receive any pay progression as at top of band, so are stuck like a lot of people without even a cost of living rise till April 2006,


KEEP ON FIGHTING , VOTE NO

(by email)

senior managers pay

SW claim the proposed deal is the best possible. What they haven't been open and honest about is what the senior managers (i.e. above Band A) are getting. No doubt the fat cats had their snouts in the trough first and we get what's left. Does anyone in Unison know? And if you do, will you please tell us?

(by email)

Was Georgie Right?

I hope you don't mind but I have to get this off my chest!
I feel disgusted by the treatment of North West staff by the GM whereby we have some piggies being more equal than the other piggies. I have witnessed "Senior" staff who only have walk 10 yards to a meeting/training being supplied with lunch at the company's expense while staff who have travelled miles to attend meetings/training enjoy no such luxury! I was under the impression that Scottish Water Policy was "no free lunches" irrespective of whose budget it was paid from but in the North West it seems that Animal Farm has removed itself from the bookshelf and is alive and well.
(by email)
(is this happening in other areas too?)

why don't you email your comments to the branch?
(note your anonymity is guaranteed unless you agree otherwise)
top of page home

losing overtime with new comps and bens?

If you've worked out your going to lose out on overtime with the new comps and bens - the link to TUC's overtime calculator will help you work out how much you'll lose.
top of page home
Decision on Partnership delayed

The debate and careful consideration as to whether you want the Branch to remain in the Partnership Agreement with Scottish Water has been postponed until after the Comps. & Bens. vote.

top of page home


Compensation And Benefits Vote No!
The Branch Executive at a special Branch meeting has reaffirmed the previous recommendation to members to reject the Compensation and Benefits package in its forthcoming ballots.
Unison will shortly be mailing it’s own ballot papers to members. This is to allow Unison Branch Executive to gauge how you the members feel on the Issue.
Scottish Water will also be sending out ballot papers on the same subject.
You Must remember to respond separately to both ballots – preferably voting NO both times!.
All Members - Please tell us what you think! It’s a very serious issue
- Speak to colleagues and your local steward – or email the Branch
top of page home

Why Two Ballots?
Unison asked Scottish Water to have individual union and non – union staff votes identified on their ballot papers – This request was refused.
We have therefore had to carry out our own consultative ballot to accurately determine Unison members position on the Comps. & Bens. Package.
The result of Unison’s own ballot will be announced to you as soon as the votes are counted!
top of page home

No Compensation & (very little) Benefits

Here is a list of the issues / concerns Unison's Branch Exec have in relation to the proposed package on offer

1. Payment Award of 5%
This figure is already allowed for within the SW Strategic business plan for normal cost of living increases (2.5% per annum) from now until March 2005; i.e. this is a simple cost of living rise that you would probably have received anyway.
2. Lump sum
£1000 – (it’s really £780 after tax) – You’re being asked to accept this as a buy out but over 2 years. The terms and conditions are being lost from this January – is this an insult or enough for what you’ll actually be losing in years to come?
3. Pay Progression

(a) No staff member is actually guaranteed to receive the 1.25% or 2.6% increase – (and no adequate provision for appeals under the STAR System as yet)

(b) These percentages don’t come close to existing increments that you may already be entitled to recive in the incoming year.

(c) Have you worked out how long it’ll take to rise to the top of the new salary bands? (Some members have already calculated it’ll take between 7 and 17 years!)

(d) It appears after 2006 there is no guaranteed funding for pay progression – as this money has to come from more business savings? How much more money can the management squeeze out of SW?

(e) The two percentage increases for pay progression don’t address equality in pay for the same job in different locations throughout Scotland.

4. You’ll get the 5% increase then be placed on a new salary band. Why is the 5% not being paid after everyone is placed on the appropriate band?

Salary range points – in this deal the 5% is being applied to the new salary bands. In the future this normal automatic increase in the pay ranges will not be automatically applied but will be subject to negotiation – current practice is the cost of living increases are applied to pay bands – management are proposing to use market testing to see if ranges should actually alter.

5. Earnings Protection
Buy out for those over a salary range: some members have been identified that’ll lose many £1,000’s from this – includes a big knock on effect on future pensions – the younger you are the bigger the effect. The proposed buyout doesn’t come close to adequate protection.

 6. Bonus by it’s very nature to make savings over the WIC targets will be ever more difficult to achieve (compare with your last years bonus

7. Unison raised serious concerns about the job evaluation process in some areas. No appeals process on these role profiles has taken place yet – Unison have pushed for this – no rate for job - Some staff haven’t even seen their role profile yet!

8. In addition to the above points heres is a list of detrimental items affecting some or all:

Loss of holidays over 31 days max
Freezing of Islands Allowance
Changes to long service awards (some people missed out on the last one and
will also miss this one)
Time off in lieu instead of pay if on Standby on a Public Holiday
Loss of earnings when on Standby (anticipated)
Loss of enhanced call out payment at weekends
Loss of Standby (no specific buy-out yet identified)
Increase of working week from 35 / 36.25 to 37 hours
top of page home


Does this affect me this time?

If any of this doesn’t affect you now – think of the future – it could affect you next.
Some members got a surprise last time there was a buyout / vote and happily took the cash and found themselves suffering detriment a year or two later
 top of page home