DG steps into BBC cuts dispute
Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General, has invited unions to a crisis meeting in a bid to head off a strike ballot.
BECTU, NUJ, and Amicus, were told today, April 4, that if they agreed to meet Thompson next week, the DG would respond to a series of demands tabled on behalf of staff after his announcement of widespread redundancies and privatisation.
BBC management were due to reply on April 4 to an ultimatum issued by unions in March, which demanded a 90-day moratorium on job cuts, a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, and protection of pension rights and pay rates for staff facing privatisation or outsourcing.
Unions threatened to run a strike ballot across the BBC if management refused to comply with the ultimatum, and set April 4 as the deadline for the Corporation's response.
Replying in writing today, the BBC offered the summit meeting with Thompson, and emphasised that management were committed to meaningful consultation. According to the BBC, the three-year timetable for the DG's programme of cuts meant that there was "plenty of time to talk and work through the implications of the proposed changes".
However, at a face-to-face meeting with management on April 4, the unions moved one step closer to a ballot of members by formally declaring a dispute over Thompson's plans. This means that the DG's summit meeting, now planned for April 12, could be the last chance for the BBC to head off industrial unrest.
Although the BBC itself has brokered another week to consider the unions' demands, partly due to Thompson's absence from the UK on business at the moment, the two subsidiary companies BBC Broadcast and BBC Resources, both of whom were given the same ultimatum, have responded clearly already.
In a letter on behalf of Broadcast, delivered to unions today, the BBC said that the union claim for protection of terms and conditions for 3 years after any sale, and a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies for the first 12 months, would be "made known" to bidders shortlisted to buy the company.
More positively, on pensions, Broadcast revealed that prospective purchasers will be asked to bid "on the basis" of continuing with a defined benefit (final salary) scheme. However the BBC admitted at the April 4 meeting that this was not a cast-iron guarantee that a scheme would be included in the sale.
BBC Resources stopped well short of even this, partial, commitment on pension security for staff if it is sold off. In a separate letter, Resources management said that it would be "premature" to give any assurances, other than to repeat Broadcast's promise that union demands for protection would be "made known" to interested bidders.
Unions officials have condemned the BBC's unwillingness to make a firm commitment to providing final salary pension scheme to Resources staff, and are worried that pension promises to staff in areas like Finance and HR, where outsourcing is proposed, could turn out to be just as weak, when revealed by Mark Thompson on April 12.
Until the DG's summit meeting the implementation of any cuts is meant to be in suspension, and there should be no trawls for redundancy volunteers, nor private conversations between managers and staff whose posts may be threatened.
Note of meeting on 4 April 2005 between BECTU, NUJ, Amicus, and BBC national management
The BBC was due to respond to a joint union demand for a 90-day moratorium on job cuts, and guarantees ranging from a promise of no compulsory redundancies to secure pension rights for staff facing privatisation.
Background
Management had already sent letters, from the BBC itself, and from two subsidiaries, responding to the joint union ultimatum.
In the letters, management had not accepted many of the union demands, but a meeting with Director-General Mark Thompson had been offered. The BBC had also indicated that it wanted to devolve talks about job cuts from national down to local and divisional level.
Thompson meeting offered
At the April 4 meeting, management confirmed that the DG was willing to meet the unions directly, but the first opportunity for this would be April 12, due commitments outside the UK.
Unions accepted the offer of a meeting, but noted that, so far, none of the demands tabled in March had been accepted by management.
Unions also referred to the emphasis that management's letters appeared to put on the need for adequate consultation over Thompson's reorganisation, with the BBC implying that this had already started.
On the contrary, according to unions, there had been no serious consultation yet which could yield the outcomes they wanted, particularly a reduction in the scale of redundancies.
Union ultimatum
Management questioned the unions' imposition of a deadline of April 4, by when answers to their demands were expected. In response, the unions said that in many areas managers were behaving as if the cuts were a fait accompli, and the deadline was intended to provoke genuine consultation before it was too late.
Key parts of the unions' package of demands had not been addressed - a 90-day moratorium had not been mentioned in the management letter, no guarantee had been given in respect of staff threatened with privatisation or outsourcing, and plans for BBC World Service, where cuts had still to be announced, were no clearer than they had been in March.
In the letter from management, a commitment had been given that no redundancies would take place without further consultation with the unions, however no timescale had been outlined.
World Service
On World Service, subject of a separate letter from management, the BBC had pointed out the role of government, from whom all WS funding came, and mentioned a current review of activities instigated by the government, which took some control out of the BBC's hands.
Failure to agree
Unions registered a formal failure to agree over the BBC's failure to address their demands. Management expressed surprise at this, since the offer of a meeting with the DG was intended as an opportunity for the BBC to respond in detail to the issues on which unions had sought guarantees.
The BBC said that unions should not assume that the DG's response would necessarily be negative on April 12, and there had been only 5 working days since the package of demands had been tabled.
In response to questions about the hiatus period between the April 4 meeting and a further meeting with the DG, management said that they would be prepared to investigate individual cases, for example, where contracts might not be renewed in anticipation of headcount reductions.
Problems in Glasgow
Specific problems concerning BBC Glasgow were raised - staff had been individually targeted and told unequivocally whether or not they would be staying in employment, despite an assurance from local management that no private discussions would take place.
Correspondents and reporters in Glasgow had been summoned to a meeting at which managers explained plans for the future, once staff numbers had been reduced, when multi-skilling would be extended. Most of the staff concerned had walked out of the meeting.
Management confirmed that the present policy was that staff should not be drawn into detailed discussions about redundancy on a personal basis, and undertook to rein in areas where this appeared to be happening.
Union officials explained that although this assurance was welcome, there was a problem at shop-floor level, specifically in Scotland, and members who had already been put under pressure would have little confidence in a top-level promise of restraint.
Pensions in Broadcast and Resources
Although there was no formal representation at the meeting from BBC Broadcast, or BBC Resources - both threatened with privatisation - unions sought clarification of letters from both companies which appeared to reject most, not all, of the demands that had been made for staff protection.
In the case of Broadcast, the management had said that potential purchasers would be asked to bid "on the basis of a defined benefit arrangement providing broadly comparable benefits from the date of sale". However, the BBC was not prepared to go any further than this.
For Resources staff, the pension position looked bleaker - the letter from that subsidiary had made no commitments whatsoever about the continued existence of a defined benefit pension scheme ahould the company be sold.
Management at the April 4 meeting emphasised that the more positive (but not binding) assurance about the future of pensions in Broadcast had been made only once the details of the company's sell-off had been defined.
Conversely, said management, the prospective sale of Resources was at too early a stage for any commitments to be made on pensions. Unions challenged this explanation for the discrepancy between the two subsidiaries' responses.
The continuance of a final salary pension scheme if Resources was privatised, they said, was a matter of principle, not a detail which depended on circumstances at the time. Management were warned that members would infer that Resources was less committed to maintiaining a defined benefit scheme than Broadcast.
Dispute declared
Unions gave notice that failures to agree would be registered with both subsidiaries, on the grounds that, like the BBC, they had failed to give adequate assurances for staff affected by Thompson's programme of cuts and privatisation.
Management confirmed that the Director General was still prepared to meet unions on April 12, and unions indicated that they were willing to attend.
Amended 5 April 2005
Amended 6 April 2005
Amended 7 April 2005
Amended 9 April 2005
Amended 25 May 2005
Comments received
Why wait? Get the ballot for strike action started now....
Carolyne, BBC staff, Glasgow UK 4 April 2005
Keep up the pressure, folks.
How can a private company who must make a profit and give a dividend to its shareholders, or be at risk of investigation from the Inland revenue for tax avoidance, be cheaper that in house effort.
It really makes my blood boil that our current "muppet" management are going to throw it all away.
Did they learn nothing from the Birt years? They deserve a bloody nose!
Mike, BBC staff, London UK 5 April 2005
We are missing a golden opportunity if we do nothing in Election week especially after McConnell's facile comment's in the Scottish press. Even if we are time-barred over full industrial action, surely we can work to contract as I have been hearing rumours of "14 hour days" etc etc in the planning run up to the coverage. Refusal to accept long shifts, short breaks etc could be nearly as effective as full blown strike?
John, BBC staff, Glasgow UK 5 April 2005
We should start the ballot now. The second offer of talks is just a delaying tactic by the BBC.
Anonymous, BBC staff, Glasgow UK 5 April 2005
Can we have some clarity on the position regarding the World Service. I understood there was nothing being said about cuts here until early summer. But now I read there is a "a current review of activities instigated by the government, which took some control out of the BBC's hands."
What does this mean ? Where is the control going? What sort of control ? Editorial?
John, BBC staff, London UK 5 April 2005
Like John I am concerned that the governments review of World Service staff is going to be a badly advertised, secretive exercise that staff won't be privy to until it is too late. Can we have a clarification?
Matt, BBC staff, London UK 5 April 2005
On behalf of the broadcasting workers and FCT-CCOO union from Spain I give you our full solidarity. For us the BBC is an example of very good public television, and now the BBC is in a dangerous situation. We hope that at last the BBC management rectify this position.
Daniel, Madrid Spain 5 April 2005
With today's election announcement, surely we must instigate some form of disruptive industrial action on the 4th, 5th, and 6th of May. This is a golden opportunity to show the real feelings of the membership in a very public way - I've already seen a trailer for BBC election coverage - later action will have a much lesser affect.
Dave, BBC staff, London UK 5 April 2005
We are to be transferred over to BBC Finance and as we understand are to be sold off in the next few years. I see no mention of protection, or demands from the union towards BBC Finance. Are you going to let us drop out the back door?
Deri, BBC staff, Belfast Northern Ireland UK 6 April 2005
Why if there is a ban on recruitment, are outside contracted staff being used to replace full time staff who have left before they are shoved. Is this how the BBC plan to sidestep the process of outsourcing and TUPE.
It takes the expertise of everyone from doorstops up to make quality programmes not just money.
Strike now!!
Ian, BBC staff, Belfast Northern Ireland UK 7 April 2005
Usually, the longer things in the BBC drag on, the less chance they have of happening. That's why a ballot now is so important. Thompson clearly wants to get past the elections without his masters getting shown how he's messed up - and once the government's back in he'll carry on sacking, cutting and privatising regardless. The Glasgow management's attitude alone deserves immediate reprisals. Ballot quick, strike quick and negotiate slow. Let's make these people suffer.
Roger, BBC staff, London UK 9 April 2005
Comments are no longer being accepted for this item.