Shared Services
A reader from North Lanarkshire has been in touch - regarding changes that are afoot in the Clyde Valley area - over the 'shared services' agenda envisaged in the Arbuthnott report.
Shared services are all about councils collaborating to provide 'back office' functions - such as Finance, Information Technology and Human Resource services - to avoid unecessary and expensive duplication.
Why does a small part of Scotland like Ayrshire need three directors of finance all on big six figure salaries - for example - when the money involved could be better spent on providing more care for the elderly?
So it's not a bad idea obviously - though it's been around for years - and little progress has been made.
But the reader's complaint is not about the principle of shared services - it's about the lack of information from the employers and the trade unions.
The reader says:
'Up until last week the silence has been deafening - the councils have stonewalled and refused to engage with staff about their plans - we are expecting anywhere between a 20% to 40% reduction in staffing. My question is, what are the unions doing about it?'
Well, I don't know the answer to that - but I do know that the Scottish government has encouraged the council employers to develop a 'no compulsory redundancy' policy - which the trade unions poured cold water on during the recent Holyrood elections.
Seems to me that much of the criticism was politically motivated.
Because the trade unions were flogging a dead horse - at the time - in their blind support for Scottish Labour - when they should have put party politics to one side - and concentrated on doing the right thing by their members.
So if I were in a council area were jobs are being shed as a result of 'shared services' - I'd be asking my trade union what they are doing to avoid compulsory redundancies - and forget the party politics.
Shared services are all about councils collaborating to provide 'back office' functions - such as Finance, Information Technology and Human Resource services - to avoid unecessary and expensive duplication.
Why does a small part of Scotland like Ayrshire need three directors of finance all on big six figure salaries - for example - when the money involved could be better spent on providing more care for the elderly?
So it's not a bad idea obviously - though it's been around for years - and little progress has been made.
But the reader's complaint is not about the principle of shared services - it's about the lack of information from the employers and the trade unions.
The reader says:
'Up until last week the silence has been deafening - the councils have stonewalled and refused to engage with staff about their plans - we are expecting anywhere between a 20% to 40% reduction in staffing. My question is, what are the unions doing about it?'
Well, I don't know the answer to that - but I do know that the Scottish government has encouraged the council employers to develop a 'no compulsory redundancy' policy - which the trade unions poured cold water on during the recent Holyrood elections.
Seems to me that much of the criticism was politically motivated.
Because the trade unions were flogging a dead horse - at the time - in their blind support for Scottish Labour - when they should have put party politics to one side - and concentrated on doing the right thing by their members.
So if I were in a council area were jobs are being shed as a result of 'shared services' - I'd be asking my trade union what they are doing to avoid compulsory redundancies - and forget the party politics.
