One of the most interesting things about the third sector is its diversity. It is difficult to define what a ‘normal’ third sector organisation is, just as its equally difficult for politicians to articulate what Britishness is. This can exaggerate some trade unions’ anxieties. However, these differences make the third sector so invaluable (and it is what makes
Welcome To The Jungle: The Quest Begins
Recently acevo launched a report on the relations between trade unions and the third sector. Our jungle guide, Nita Clarke provided us with a path that she had uncovered as a result of her time hunting with neighbouring tribes (Nita was a longtime official before going to work in No 10 for Tony Blair on Government and union relations. She now runs the IPA (The Involvement and Participation Association)). In our quest to uncover the lost city of
Nita Clarke’s report, The Way Ahead highlighted how past actions and future fears had allowed the tribes of Unionism and The Third Sector to foster misgivings. Mistrust and lack of unity has allowed the roads to Better Labour Relations to become blocked by the enveloping thickets of conflict or pillaged by private interests. Many union elders witnessed firsthand the shift in public services to private and third sector providers and developed animosity towards our tribe. Some go as far as to suggest that third sector groups are a tool for undermining the welfare state or that we are unqualified to provide more than niche or specialist services. As I argued earlier, these fears are misplaced, although as Nina’s work highlights that there is significant scope for improving employment practices in the sector.
Equally, there have been concerns from the Third Sector Tribe that past skirmishes from Unionism to stem the transference of public services to our sector has made some of our chieftains wary of improving links for fears that it could militarise internal criticism, affecting their organisational cohesiveness. Many groups feel that the unions provide an outdated ‘offer’ and do not do enough to address the specific characteristics of the third sector or its staff.
The Way Ahead helped to rally the troops at No.11. Nita’s insights highlighted how past concerns can be overcome and how our differing skills but progressive values can make both the third sector and unions far more effective at serving communities. We were reminded how the third sector should be seen as a better alternative to the private sector during our journey. We were taught how trade unions could summon pools of knowledge on industrial relations to protect small and medium sized organisations from negative spirits that seek to undermine our goals. We are now confident that more can be achieved through joint lobbying and open communications. The occasion reminded me of ancient wars, where union standard bearers advanced under the proclamation “We want Bread… and Roses too.” I believe that this theme unites the people of Unionism and The Third Sector in our quest.
Fired with this spirit we march, aware of our need for a joined up strategy for improving HR and ER as a matter of priority. Common agendas will emerge as we identify issues of mutual concern, develop better union/third sector protocols and dispute resolution procedures and achieve more goals through combined campaigns. The trail towards our destination is long but we are now more aware of what needs to be done to reach the city of
This article was written on behalf of Stephen Bubb, CEO of ACEVO in July 2008
Posts
6 comments:
Jonathan, I dont consider it that sweet at all.
The involvement of the 3rd sector IS a trojan horse, being used to fuck the public sector. There is quite simply no other reason for doing this. The argument that because charities are so focused on specific provision they are better then the 'ideologicaly bagaged' of the public sector doesnt stand up. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR DOING STUFF? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE PRIVATISED? Other then you can do it cheaper and end up with worse provision? No amount of management speak can hide this. The fact that some unions are starting to sign up to this (notably New Labour affiliated unions) has sparked outrage in non Labour affiliated unions and on the genuine left: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=258500
That wont worry you and all the other New Labour apologists. You might want to worry about the fact that the Labour core vote and everyone else now despise New Labour, as they once did the tories: Glasgow east
Im sorry my piece upset you. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of the third sector, as even though I am in favour of higher levels of investment in public services I don't agree that the public sector has a natural right to provide all services. The current status of public sector bureaucracy (I know its not the left wings fault, as they havent had a say for 30 years) makes me distasteful of the managerial waste, as many investment decisions are done for managerial gain over social progress (and even cost-effectiveness).
Often voluntary organisations are lean and able to work between government departments more effectively as a result of not being caught up in the silo culture, the proximity of their organisation to its users and local stakeholders. In my opinion that should make them more effective than the regular ilk both in terms of service offered and cost.
Where I may concede to you if the steep cliff face that often needs to be overcome for the smaller organisations to deliver their goals. The third sector has been putting in a lot of effort attempting to grow its size, especially through merging and increasing scale. I feel that this is a shame, as its local groups that can really transform things. Looking back at mining history, I hope you can see parallels between voluntary funded local centres as the locus of the community and many third sector groups work in disadvantaged areas. Unfortunately many of the inhibitors to these groups work are the funding arrangements and the burdensome levels of regulation.
Why is the 3rd sector leaner? Because its partly staffed by gullible volunteers, and its appealing to industry because a greater share of its funding comes from gullible members of the public then from taxation on industry. The reason the public sector isn't lean is partly because of the private consultants who achieve very little but cost very lotto, but also because the people that work in it often have things like decent pensions and decent pay, a hangover from the times when it was thought of as outlandish to demand some respect from your employer. Your phrase 'the public sector doesnt have am automatic "right" to provision indicates that the public sector is expanding its dominating reach. Rather the opposite is true. Your private and third sector are the ones encroaching on what should be public sector, and providing worse provision at higher cost, if ANYTHING that has been privatised in recent years is to go by.
Which comes to my question, forgot the 'rights' of the public sector, what right do you (the third/private sector) have to take over welfare provision? What right do you have, to ask workers at the DWP to give up what few benefits they get from being in the public sector, to take even greater pay cuts and shit pensions by having them privatised? What right do you have, to ask benefit claimants to do community service like common criminals, (otherwise known as reintroducing the workhouse)? Purnells policies which you clearly support come straight out of the tory rights box of tricks, so I guess a long term Labour supporter like yourself wont have any trouble switching to the government in waiting when it gets in.
As one of these evil, fascist, soul destroying, baby eating extortionate private sector consultants, I must admit that I have seen as many private sector consultants striving for the benefit of the public as I have seen public civil servants striving for their own private benefits. Corruption is rampant in many of the public administrations of europe, without even mentioning the rest of the world, and while this often translates into the same for the private sector, there are still good old fogeys (in the private and public sectors) willing to dedicate their lives to the future of humanity, and not just their selfish little desires.
A lot of the consultants employed are expensive because their lives are, often, awful. They have a few piecemeal assignments per year which usually equate to about a fifth of the wages of some of this civil servants (who, while claiming to be serving the state are convincingly filling their pockets its money).
All in all, feel free to bash the private sector, but without one to keep the other in balance, our lives would all be a lot worse. Perhaps a Zimbabwe style public administration would be more tailored to your needs. There is no one great evil you can put your finger on, the problems of the world cannot be blamed on anything other than humans as a whole. I can assure you that close minded atittudes that cast blame without adequate facts rapidly lead to the promotion of the world's Bill O'Reillys. The private sector is NOT the evil fourth reich, and generalisations are moronic.
In regards to the wages given by the third sector, as Fred points out in many cases a wage is merely a return for the mindnumbing tasks involved in performing tasks and the emotional return obtained for employment. Its rather condescending to paint workers who accept lower wages to work for an organisation which is very close to their social goals as gullible individuals who have been led away from more remunerated private and public sector roles. Why aren’t gyou celebrating that third sector CEOs earn less then public or private sector leaders who handle similar budgets, so that money can be spent more usefully on other important areas. Does a doctor cure illnesses as a result of his access to medicines or because he earns £100,000 per year? Also, there is an agreement which protects third sector organisations from having to use their own money to provide public services that would otherwise be funded by the public purse.
However, if there is additional societal benefits that fit close with their goals they may subsidise the investment to broaden the results of the service given. Nothing too wrong with that surely?
You mentioned the fact that the third sector doesn’t have as much right to provide welfare services. May I remind you that voluntary giving existed long before state provision existed. From churches providing education. The invention of hospices. The founding of the RSPCA. Lifeboat rescue. Clement Attlee was himself a third sector leader.
Even William Beverage, one of the architects of the post-war settlement was not so clear that the state sector needed to be so centralised and top-down. As he put it: “Social security must be achieved by cooperation by the state and the individual…. The state in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, or responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.”
Your viewpoint ignores the fact the that the role of the public sector should be equally examined to guarantee effectiveness. Taking such a partisan approach is unlikely to create a fully functioning society. For example, I am in favour of a nationalised railways. However, that does not mean that all aspects need to be provided by the state. Would be need a state manufacturer for new trains right down to the seat covers? Do we need a public sector window cleaning company to keep the station windows clean? Without recognising the strengths and weaknesses of each sector we aren’t likely to progress as much as we would like, as we wont be able to benefit from differing skills sets and motivations. The article I wrote was an attempt to encourage cooperation to foster this ambition, through celebrating diversity. What's not sweet about that?
If people that can afford to take low paying jobs working for charities providing what the state should be doing through tax (usually because they have no dependents or have additiional income from a partner) then bully for them. What happens to the people down at the DWP who have families to support when their public sector job gets turned into a charity job and their pay and benefits go down? What happens to the people who used to clean train station windows when their job gets privatised and their pay and benefits go down? How are they going to support their families? You dont seem to have factored these peoples survival into your plans. Plans which, when I sift through your corporate speak, seem to exist solely for the benefit of saving a few quid in the short term, amassing huge profit for private contractors, and then having to bail them out to the tune of millions (metronet, railtrack, *insert pf/pppi scheme of choice*) when the service they provide is worse then it !
was
before.
And all this without consulting those who it effects the most, the users of the service and the workers in it.
The examples you give of historic 3rd sector actually show why the third secotr is a threat. Church schools are mostly OK, but what about people that want a free education but dont want christian morality shovelled down their kids throats? Thats why state comprehensives were started. RNLI is precisely why 3rd sector is sooo much worse then public: The use of volunteers means time is lost in rescues costing lives. The lack of funds means RNLI helicopters often have to abandon searches because they are so old and lives are lost. Doesnt happen in the fire service, perfect example of a charity that should be made public sector, ask people if you like.
That Beveridge quote is going on about the responsibility of the individual to the state and their community, nothing to do with vulture private/3rd sector.
Please answer questions is first post. In one line if possible.
Post a Comment