Update on One Housing Group Dispute: Referrel to ACAS

Some positive news today about the ongoing union dispute over wage cuts and compensation in One Housing Group. 

After a strongly worded request by the majority union UNISON to management, the 15,000 homes landlord and care provider,  One Housing Group has agreed to talks at ACAS "to try and resolve our current union disputes’ and also attempt ‘to improve our overall trade union relations" (Inside Housing) .

To be fair, Unite members who have been on strike for 11 days in recent months on this issue have asked in the past for the dispute to go to ACAS.

I understand that a meeting will take place soon and I hope that a settlement acceptable to all parties can be hammered out. 

See previous posts on dispute and picket line here and here.

(my picture from a past unrelated meeting looking out from the ACAS London office) 

More nonsense about Pension fund deficits

Last week Inside Housing contacted me about the latest report warning members of the Social Housing Pension Scheme (SHPS) that it's deficit (put simply the difference between assets held by the scheme and its "liabilities") has grown again.

The investments in the SHPS have actually been doing pretty well. While it is practically impossible to get information about SHPS from its web site,  the parent body "The Pension Trust" saw net investment income grow by over £400 million last year. This positive information is hardly ever reported.

Instead the emphasis is always on the "deficit". Which I keep repeating is calculated in an outdated and increasingly meaningless manner.  Now, this argument is not as complicated as it seems. Bear with me a little on this.

The "deficit" is calculated by reference to the yield (return) of government bonds called gilts. Due to fears over the survival of the Euro and government bonds in some parts of Europe and the so-called Quantitative Easing programme (the mass buying up of gilts by the Bank of England aka "QE"). Gilt yields are at a 200 year historic low. The lower the yield the higher the deficit. The pensions fundamentals haven't suddenly changed. It's just the way they calculate the deficit.This also leads to wild volatility in pension deficits which can double or half in a matter of weeks.

So even if your investments are doing okay and there has been no sudden change in any other material factors such as life expectancy, due to changes in gilts your scheme is somehow in "trouble" and you have to raise contributions, close the scheme or reduce benefits?

This isn't just the SHPS, it is practically all defined benefit (DB) pension schemes that suffer from these "Alice in Wonderland" calculations.

Picture above of typical DB trustee meeting when discussing latest "deficit" projections.

436,000 reasons why we need employee reps on Housing Association Boards

Last Friday Inside Housing magazine disclosed that the former CEO of the so called "not for profit" Housing Association "Places for People" received a total pay off of £436,000 when he recently retired (voluntary).

Because of this the Housing Regulator has downgraded the Association due to "governance concerns" and 3 board members have resigned.

Frankly, this response is grossly inadequate and appears to be mere hand wringing. This is not just an isolated cock up but indicative of a wider malaise. The impression given is that some large Housing Associations are run by some unaccountable, self perpetuating mates club. Solely concerned with enriching themselves from their residents, clients and of course, the public purse.

So what can be done to reverse this? There are vague calls for "restraint" but come on - do turkey's votes for Christmas? Will Hutton in his 2011 report on Fair Pay recommended there should be employee reps on public sector boards especially the remuneration committees (who decide pay). Such organisations should also publish the multiples between the lowest paid and the highest paid. Personally I believe we also need far more independent resident and client reps on all boards.

I had a quick look at the "Places for Executive Profit" website tonight and noticed an advert for an estate cleaner in Sleaford, Lincolnshire for £6.33 per hour (for a whole one hour per week!). This is  poverty pay and only 2p per hour above the uprated national minimum wage. I work it out that the CEO got pro rota 35 times as much as the cleaner that year. I suspect that office cleaning is outsourced. I wonder how much the worker who cleans the CEO office receives?

Why can't employee reps sit on all Boards? They sit with management on joint safety committees where they take decisions on the lives of workers and residents? They have employee reps on  pension committees where they decide on investing millions of pounds.  So why not on Boards and especially remuneration committees? In other arguably more successful countries than the UK this is just considered the norm? Employee representatives will be a brake on greed and corruption.

Unless Housing Associations clean up their act then I don't think there is a long term future for the sector. There has been a lot of genuine fuss and bother today about 30 staff at 14 foreign aid voluntary organisations being paid more than £100k per year. While I share this concern this is just small beer compared to the huge amounts paid in executive pay in most Housing Associations.

Metropolitan Housing Shooting

This is an article that I wrote today for our branch newsletter. "The exact details of what happened yesterday over the shooting of a Metropolitan HA housing officer and a bailiff during an eviction are unknown.

The use of guns against housing staff is thankfully incredibly rare but don’t forget the recent survey by "Inside Housing" that found yet another year on increase in assaults on staff. In the meanwhile an incident such as this concentrates minds.

Local stewards and safety representatives should be thinking of asking management when did they last review staff risk assessments and safety procedures? Have staff and the union been properly consulted on these documents? Are staff reps invited and enabled to attend safety committees? Do you have a register of residents who may be violent? Is this register up to-date and most importantly is it being used? Is there adequate resources made available for health and safety in your organisation?

The branch is planning to hold a training workshop for all our reps. Details will be sent out soon.
Remember a unionised workplace is a safer work place. The more of us in the union the safer all of us will be in work. If you are interested in being a UNISON safely rep contact the branch. Check out the excellent safety resources on the UNISON website here.

Housing workers face more violence due to welfare cuts

Well done to Inside Housing magazine (again) for their recent survey of housing workers. 83% believe that they face more risk of violence at work due to welfare cuts and 41% feel less safe than they did 12 Months ago.

I had been interviewed by their reporter and was quoted "Housing officers are going to be expected to evict model tenants who have never caused any problems, who due to austerity and welfare reforms [are unable to pay their rent]. It is expected that tenants and their relatives are going to get angry.’

In a second article looking at a rise in verbal and physical assaults during the past 12 months there was a number of horrendous quotes from different housing staff who are shouted and sworn at on a weekly basis; kicked; punched; shot at with a air rifle; had a bowling ball thrown at them from a high rise; threats to kill; threats to burn down their homes and kidnap their children.

What is also worrying is that 75% of staff believe that their employer is not doing enough to protect them and 25% think it is pointless reporting such incidents to their boss since it would be a "waste of time". They also believe cuts in staffing levels have made the risk worse.

Until we can get rid of this Tory led coalition government unions and employers must work together to try and keep housing staff safe. We need more union safety reps who must be given sufficient time off to be trained, attend joint safety committees, properly inspect workplaces and constantly review updated risk assessments.

Employers need to put their hands in their pockets and fully resource their health and safety advisers, buy decent and up to date protective equipment for staff and most importantly - stop threatening to evict those tenants who cannot pay bedroom tax. There are other ways to collect debt and in many places there is no suitable smaller alternative accommodation to offer them.

"The Emperor has no clothes": but still killing retirement hopes and dreams

This cartoon is from Friday's "Inside Housing" Magazine about the £5 billion Pension Trust which is forcing out, for no good reason, many third sector employers from its defined benefit scheme, while pricing out others due to huge rises in contribution rates.

While I am pleased that Inside Housing has led this debate in our sector and had a news article, analysis and editorial on this subject, it has hasn't quite got it right about some pretty important issues.

1. Why is the Pension Trust writing to employers threatening to force their their workers out of a decent pension scheme on the basis of discredited "mark to market" accounting measures? Why are they increasing contribution rates on this basis to such levels as to force even more schemes to close.?

2. Why is the Pension Trust not talking to the Pension Regulator about extending its deficit repayment period to take into account the 200 year abnormal gilt yields, which are making schemes seem to be in trouble, when they are clearly not? Other social pension funds have done so successfully, why hasn't the Pension Trust?

3. The Pension Minister Steve Webb MP himself has recognised "mark to market" is a nightmare which is killing perfectly good pensions schemes and has promised to do something about it. Why force schemes to close when change is likely to happen soon?

4. Why isn't the Pension Trust thinking about asking the highly paid to pay more? They already pay less than the low paid due to high rate tax relief? Why aren't they encouraging or looking into salary sacrifice, contribution "caps and shares", changes in retirement ages, hybrid schemes or investment fund merger?

5. Was the Housing Charity "People Can" forced into administration by the Pension Trust, discredited pension accounting measures or Government cuts? What are the real reasons? Who is really to blame?

6. The Pension deficit is not "the result of poor returns on government bonds in which the scheme had invested heavily" (page 12).  The problem is not investment returns it is the way you calculate the cost of pension promises (liabilities) which are currently based on government bond yields.  This is absolutely crucial for people to understand. The deficit has increased in the last 3 years even though the scheme investments have increased in value.

7. What has changed? Have people suddenly started living longer in the last 3 years? No, the only thing that has changed is that gilt yields are at a 200 year low due to reasons completely unrelated to the real cost of a pension.

8. So "The Emperor has no clothes" the deficit is not real. So why close and force people out of decent pensions for no good reason?

9. It is a fact that closed schemes become more mature and are forced to have smaller and smaller levels of equities and more and more traditionally low return bonds and cash holding. While at the same time paying the same level of huge fees and commissions.

10. Closing schemes does not get rid of any deficits, in fact they can make things much worse.

One Housing "defends" the indefensible

This is the 3rd recent post on Housing Association, "One Housing Group". First was in August this year in response to their plans to "Shape Communities" while at the same time slashing the pay and conditions of already low paid care and support staff.

The second was early this month about this post by Cllr Marc Francis, Tower Hamlets Labour Party, on housing blog "Red Brick" about "One Housing" going back on a deal made with residents about them having a majority on their local housing management board. This deal was in return for their support for an estate transfer.

"One Housing" have now come up with a rather silly defence of their action in this "Inside Housing" report. They attack the previous Board, Tory Cllrs and the local Labour MP and appear to claim that residents are just incapable of running housing services.

Which must be a bit of a surprise to the many successful co-operative housing organisations here and abroad. 

This is just an excuse. They could have compromised and still had an effective Residents Board but have chosen not to do so.

No wonder many attack Housing Associations as being unaccountable with poor or non existent governance, run in the interests of the senior management executives and their advisers, not ordinary residents.  This may be unfair to some but thanks to the behaviour of "One Housing" (and others) you can understand why many residents and politicians think so.