Failings into care of vulnerable children were not fault of administration former city boss claims

Daily Echo: Councillor Royston Smith. Councillor Royston Smith.

THE man in charge of Southampton City Council in the year which saw the deaths of four children and the work of social services branded inadequate has insisted that his administration was not to blame for the failings.

Councillor Royston Smith said his party was not responsible for the events of 2011, which saw a damning Ofsted inspection into how well social services cared for the most vulnerable children and the deaths of four young boys, three of which were known to the department.

As reported by the Daily Echo, a raft of new measures have now been implemented by children’s services bosses at the authority following a complete overhaul.

Last night the city council could not confirm whether anyone had been disciplined or had lost their jobs as a result of the failings.

Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.

It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.

As a result she said around 50 per cent of social workers left, leading to an over-reliance on agency staff and inconsistencies in the service.

Cllr Smith has maintained that the strike action was not the cause of staff leaving but a national shortage of experienced social workers in the wake of the Baby P case.

But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth.

“I put that firmly at the door of the administration at the time, and the Ofsted report also highlights the same issue. The administration were warned that as a result of choosing to attack pay and conditions as part of a cost-cutting exercise, then children would suffer. No joy is taken in the fact that indeed happened.”

Cllr Smith, leader of the Conservative group in Southampton, said although the events of 2011 happened on his watch, he did not accept that the administration was to blame.

He said: “We were but councillors, not the practitioners.

“What I do know is that we wanted the best care for our vulnerable children and we made sure we did that by putting the money into it. We wanted to recruit more social workers to ease the workload.

“At that time nationally there was a chronic shortage of social workers following the Baby P case. What was the alternative to agency staff? We couldn’t have no social workers at all.”

Serious Case Reviews are yet to be published which examine whether more could have been done to prevent the deaths of Jayden Adams, two, his four-year-old brother Bradley and Blake Fowler, seven, who all died in 2011 in the January, April and December respectively.

A review into how three-month-old Nico Maynard died in the September of that year found that more information surrounding the background of the parents should have been shared between key agencies.

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:19pm Fri 7 Mar 14

HillsidePaul says...

their watch, their bad.
their watch, their bad. HillsidePaul
  • Score: 7

12:35pm Fri 7 Mar 14

RomseyKeith says...

Sounds like more Council Penny Pinching caused shortages in staff and resulted in human suffering. This will keep happening, of course, as a balance sheet is much more important than human lives, at least to those in politics. If you can say "we cut the budget by this much" whilst leaving out the part that it led to strikes, under staffing, and poor care, then on paper you look brilliant. It's unfortunately the way of this miserable world.
Happy Friday, people...
Sounds like more Council Penny Pinching caused shortages in staff and resulted in human suffering. This will keep happening, of course, as a balance sheet is much more important than human lives, at least to those in politics. If you can say "we cut the budget by this much" whilst leaving out the part that it led to strikes, under staffing, and poor care, then on paper you look brilliant. It's unfortunately the way of this miserable world. Happy Friday, people... RomseyKeith
  • Score: 15

1:06pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Mr E says...

Funny how they jump in to take credit when good stuff happens, but when the bad stuff emerges they suddenly deny all responsibility and try and shift the blame any way they can .
Funny how they jump in to take credit when good stuff happens, but when the bad stuff emerges they suddenly deny all responsibility and try and shift the blame any way they can . Mr E
  • Score: 22

2:10pm Fri 7 Mar 14

car driver says...

Name and shame yes the councillors hold the purse strings but who where responsible for the case loads and the supervision of the social workers they are quick enough to discredit innocent people but never hold their hands up when they get it wrong lives have been destroyed by these people yet again hiding behind the children's act man up and show your faces you caused the deaths of these innocent children by not listening. Its disgusting what you have played a major role in .It will be too late in 20 years for an inquiry hold it now metropolitan springs too mind
Name and shame yes the councillors hold the purse strings but who where responsible for the case loads and the supervision of the social workers they are quick enough to discredit innocent people but never hold their hands up when they get it wrong lives have been destroyed by these people yet again hiding behind the children's act man up and show your faces you caused the deaths of these innocent children by not listening. Its disgusting what you have played a major role in .It will be too late in 20 years for an inquiry hold it now metropolitan springs too mind car driver
  • Score: -2

2:34pm Fri 7 Mar 14

hantslass says...

If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking which means the wrong children get put into care.
If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking [ which is dangerous] which means the wrong children get put into care. hantslass
  • Score: 2

2:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

thinklikealocal says...

At the time there was a chronic shortage of Social Workers..... So how does Royston Smith therefore defend his decision to cut their pay? 50% of Social Workers left and the resulting chaos no doubt contributed to a breakdown in comprehensive service provision to vulnerable children. But no, of course it is in no way his responsibility......
. Disgraceful.
At the time there was a chronic shortage of Social Workers..... So how does Royston Smith therefore defend his decision to cut their pay? 50% of Social Workers left and the resulting chaos no doubt contributed to a breakdown in comprehensive service provision to vulnerable children. But no, of course it is in no way his responsibility...... . Disgraceful. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 19

3:01pm Fri 7 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

hantslass wrote:
If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking which means the wrong children get put into care.
You have no idea what you are talking about
[quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking [ which is dangerous] which means the wrong children get put into care.[/p][/quote]You have no idea what you are talking about KSO16R
  • Score: 12

3:01pm Fri 7 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

hantslass wrote:
If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking which means the wrong children get put into care.
You have no idea what you are talking about
[quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking [ which is dangerous] which means the wrong children get put into care.[/p][/quote]You have no idea what you are talking about KSO16R
  • Score: 5

3:02pm Fri 7 Mar 14

SotonGreen says...

Literally the blood of these wee bairns on his hands makes me sick to my stomach all for the sake of few quid on our council tax.
Literally the blood of these wee bairns on his hands makes me sick to my stomach all for the sake of few quid on our council tax. SotonGreen
  • Score: 10

3:09pm Fri 7 Mar 14

hantslass says...

Idont believe there is a shortage of social workers the pay is too good, trust me i know. the trouble is they are lazy and spend a lot of time in groups in the office drinking coffee chatting but not discussing what really needs discussing , it seems they hope someone else is dealing with the problems .or shall i say take it for granted its being dealt with. hence the reason everyone is blaming everyone else. employ real people who care more about the kids than a fat pay packet
Idont believe there is a shortage of social workers the pay is too good, trust me i know. the trouble is they are lazy and spend a lot of time in groups in the office drinking coffee chatting but not discussing what really needs discussing , it seems they hope someone else is dealing with the problems .or shall i say take it for granted its being dealt with. hence the reason everyone is blaming everyone else. employ real people who care more about the kids than a fat pay packet hantslass
  • Score: -4

3:16pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Let's get it right! I go on strike I work to rule & children die this isn't my fault but the people who cut my wages so making me angry & getting me on strike?
Wasn't it Social services especially Childrens that saw an increase in pay whilst others took a pay cut?
I can't see how anyone can blame anyone else for the withdrawal of your services & then the consequences of that withdrawal?
ACAS was called so why didn't these social workers insist on their Unions to negotiate? As we know those Unions refused to talk whilst at ACAS.
You the workers decided to withdraw your Labour not the council so the blame rests with you or does a few quid come before people's lives?
If Social Workers DID know how vulnerable these children were how could they not look after them? Money?
Let's get it right! I go on strike I work to rule & children die this isn't my fault but the people who cut my wages so making me angry & getting me on strike? Wasn't it Social services especially Childrens that saw an increase in pay whilst others took a pay cut? I can't see how anyone can blame anyone else for the withdrawal of your services & then the consequences of that withdrawal? ACAS was called so why didn't these social workers insist on their Unions to negotiate? As we know those Unions refused to talk whilst at ACAS. You the workers decided to withdraw your Labour not the council so the blame rests with you or does a few quid come before people's lives? If Social Workers DID know how vulnerable these children were how could they not look after them? Money? loosehead
  • Score: -29

3:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died?
But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth.
So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault?
Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault?
I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again
So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died? But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth. So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault? Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault? I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again loosehead
  • Score: -23

3:35pm Fri 7 Mar 14

hantslass says...

KSO16R wrote:
hantslass wrote:
If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking which means the wrong children get put into care.
You have no idea what you are talking about
thats what you think kso16r
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: If there was a poll on social services and social workers, i'm sure 90% would say give them the sack. for years they have become lazy . once apon a time they employed carers but then they gave the responsibilities to agencies which cost the taxpayers a shed load of money, agencies were popping up all over the place talk about get rich quick out of the elderly and sick people. the government should make the social services more responsible ,they employ molly coddled people straight out of uni but with no common sense, who has not experienced poverty or even about looking after children. we need ordinary people who have experienced life and have brought up their children to know the pitfalls on life. it seems to me they are panicking [ which is dangerous] which means the wrong children get put into care.[/p][/quote]You have no idea what you are talking about[/p][/quote]thats what you think kso16r hantslass
  • Score: -5

4:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
Let's get it right! I go on strike I work to rule & children die this isn't my fault but the people who cut my wages so making me angry & getting me on strike? Wasn't it Social services especially Childrens that saw an increase in pay whilst others took a pay cut? I can't see how anyone can blame anyone else for the withdrawal of your services & then the consequences of that withdrawal? ACAS was called so why didn't these social workers insist on their Unions to negotiate? As we know those Unions refused to talk whilst at ACAS. You the workers decided to withdraw your Labour not the council so the blame rests with you or does a few quid come before people's lives? If Social Workers DID know how vulnerable these children were how could they not look after them? Money?
No one is talking about Social Workers going on strike. They didn't. What lots of them chose to do was leave and go and work for an employer who they felt would value them more. Are you saying people who work with the vulnerable should not be able to leave one job for another? Social Workers did not get a pay rise. They had a pay cut. A few months into the dispute, as they all voted with their feet, RS decided to introduce a 'market supplement', coincidently, which was equivalent to the pay cut they had received! RS was warned by very senior and experienced Social Services and HR Managers of the dire consequences of cutting these vital and in demand staff's pay. He took no notice then and now feels he is no way responsible for the fallout. I'm afraid this is a integrity failure on his part.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's get it right! I go on strike I work to rule & children die this isn't my fault but the people who cut my wages so making me angry & getting me on strike? Wasn't it Social services especially Childrens that saw an increase in pay whilst others took a pay cut? I can't see how anyone can blame anyone else for the withdrawal of your services & then the consequences of that withdrawal? ACAS was called so why didn't these social workers insist on their Unions to negotiate? As we know those Unions refused to talk whilst at ACAS. You the workers decided to withdraw your Labour not the council so the blame rests with you or does a few quid come before people's lives? If Social Workers DID know how vulnerable these children were how could they not look after them? Money?[/p][/quote]No one is talking about Social Workers going on strike. They didn't. What lots of them chose to do was leave and go and work for an employer who they felt would value them more. Are you saying people who work with the vulnerable should not be able to leave one job for another? Social Workers did not get a pay rise. They had a pay cut. A few months into the dispute, as they all voted with their feet, RS decided to introduce a 'market supplement', coincidently, which was equivalent to the pay cut they had received! RS was warned by very senior and experienced Social Services and HR Managers of the dire consequences of cutting these vital and in demand staff's pay. He took no notice then and now feels he is no way responsible for the fallout. I'm afraid this is a integrity failure on his part. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 10

5:26pm Fri 7 Mar 14

George4th says...

loosehead wrote:
So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died?
But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth.
So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault?
Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault?
I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again
Interesting how many voted against you and yet those same people are too cowardly to answer you!!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died? But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth. So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault? Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault? I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Interesting how many voted against you and yet those same people are too cowardly to answer you!! George4th
  • Score: -8

5:54pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

George4th wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died?
But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth.
So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault?
Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault?
I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again
Interesting how many voted against you and yet those same people are too cowardly to answer you!!
if they read both posts they'd see it's absolutely stupid for anyone especially a union boss to point the finger of blame at anyone as it was a mixture of events that caused this tragedy & I was pointing out how it could be twisted so the Unions were blamed If they want to put thumbs down then I take it they can't deny it?
Even though I personally don't think this is a time for a Union or political party to try to earn points against another party/person.
If some posters think I'll quit because of a childish thumbs down campaign by certain left wingers they are mistaken so thumbs away
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died? But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth. So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault? Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault? I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Interesting how many voted against you and yet those same people are too cowardly to answer you!![/p][/quote]if they read both posts they'd see it's absolutely stupid for anyone especially a union boss to point the finger of blame at anyone as it was a mixture of events that caused this tragedy & I was pointing out how it could be twisted so the Unions were blamed If they want to put thumbs down then I take it they can't deny it? Even though I personally don't think this is a time for a Union or political party to try to earn points against another party/person. If some posters think I'll quit because of a childish thumbs down campaign by certain left wingers they are mistaken so thumbs away loosehead
  • Score: -11

6:14pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Rather than Cllr Smith just attempting to absolve himself and his council from all blame in this horror story perhaps he should congratulate and comend the people concerned who: .............
(As reported by the Daily Echo ), introduced a raft of new measures which have now been implemented by children’s services bosses at the authority following a complete overhaul. ......... hopefully this tragic event will never be repeated. ..... on anyones watch
.
However ..... if the Tories were in opposition would Cllr Smith have been shouting from the roof tops and pointing the finger ..... You bet he would have.
.
Rather than Cllr Smith just attempting to absolve himself and his council from all blame in this horror story perhaps he should congratulate and comend the people concerned who: ............. (As reported by the Daily Echo ), introduced a raft of new measures which have now been implemented by children’s services bosses at the authority following a complete overhaul. ......... hopefully this tragic event will never be repeated. ..... on anyones watch . However ..... if the Tories were in opposition would Cllr Smith have been shouting from the roof tops and pointing the finger ..... You bet he would have. . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

7:30pm Fri 7 Mar 14

SotonGreen says...

Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit. SotonGreen
  • Score: 4

8:14pm Fri 7 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

George4th wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died?
But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth.
So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault?
Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault?
I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again
Interesting how many voted against you and yet those same people are too cowardly to answer you!!
What experience have you personally had with the social services and in particular child services?
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So the Tory Council said this is now the pay so it's their fault these children died? But Miss Garner said: “Yes, there was a problem nationwide with retaining experienced social workers but it was much worse in Southampton, where around 50 per cent of staff left to go to alternative posts in Hampshire and Portsmouth. So there was a problem nationwide in retaining experienced social workers but it was our councils fault? Sorry but why wasn't it just a tragedy which many issues contributed to & not anyones fault? I showed above how it could be put at the feet of the Strikers & Unions but in reality it was many many issues & no one group or persons fault & hopefully Social services have learnt from it & safeguards are now in place to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Interesting how many voted against you and yet those same people are too cowardly to answer you!![/p][/quote]What experience have you personally had with the social services and in particular child services? KSO16R
  • Score: 6

9:02pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from? loosehead
  • Score: -14

9:03pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
OH! I started work at BAT the 80's & I had a Indian guy as my lodger as he was a friend who needed a place to stay so saying that is slander.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]OH! I started work at BAT the 80's & I had a Indian guy as my lodger as he was a friend who needed a place to stay so saying that is slander. loosehead
  • Score: -12

9:06pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I'm married to a Thai lady & have been for over 16 years do you think a BNP member or even ex member would be?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I'm married to a Thai lady & have been for over 16 years do you think a BNP member or even ex member would be? loosehead
  • Score: -11

9:12pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Sotongreen this was from a Unison boss if as Thinklikealocal has said social workers never went on strike if as no one has denied the Tory council actually raised their wages but still they left how's this any one person or parties fault?
Instead of left wingers trying to score cheap political victories they should be thinking of this as a tragic set of circumstances which they now say they've resolved & feel sorry for the families & the children not look for scapegoats .
I am grown up enough to not use this to attack any party or person I showed how it could be swung against the workers but hey I wonder with a local election coming up why the left on here are so determined to make it a political issue instead of a tragedy?
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Sotongreen this was from a Unison boss if as Thinklikealocal has said social workers never went on strike if as no one has denied the Tory council actually raised their wages but still they left how's this any one person or parties fault? Instead of left wingers trying to score cheap political victories they should be thinking of this as a tragic set of circumstances which they now say they've resolved & feel sorry for the families & the children not look for scapegoats . I am grown up enough to not use this to attack any party or person I showed how it could be swung against the workers but hey I wonder with a local election coming up why the left on here are so determined to make it a political issue instead of a tragedy? loosehead
  • Score: -13

9:12pm Fri 7 Mar 14

hantslass says...

loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?
loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?[/p][/quote]loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN hantslass
  • Score: -11

9:14pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
As this is out & out slander can you tell me who you are?
I have reported this post so come on you are good at committing slander so why not be brave & give us your name?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]As this is out & out slander can you tell me who you are? I have reported this post so come on you are good at committing slander so why not be brave & give us your name? loosehead
  • Score: -10

9:17pm Fri 7 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

If i am wrong sincere apologies to you. However, if you are the person i think you are we definately had a conversation in the 80s when you expressed your support for the bnp.
If i am wrong sincere apologies to you. However, if you are the person i think you are we definately had a conversation in the 80s when you expressed your support for the bnp. KSO16R
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?
loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN
hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far.
As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it.
Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes.
Why were they leaving the profession all over the country?
Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council?
Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.
[quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?[/p][/quote]loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN[/p][/quote]hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far. As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it. Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes. Why were they leaving the profession all over the country? Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council? Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth. loosehead
  • Score: -12

9:31pm Fri 7 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

loosehead wrote:
hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?
loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN
hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far.
As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it.
Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes.
Why were they leaving the profession all over the country?
Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council?
Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.
Again you do not know what you are talking about hantsless
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?[/p][/quote]loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN[/p][/quote]hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far. As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it. Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes. Why were they leaving the profession all over the country? Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council? Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.[/p][/quote]Again you do not know what you are talking about hantsless KSO16R
  • Score: 1

9:32pm Fri 7 Mar 14

hantslass says...

loosehead wrote:
hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?
loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN
hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far.
As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it.
Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes.
Why were they leaving the profession all over the country?
Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council?
Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.
I totally agree with you , unfortunately though, money seems to be the priority over the welfare of these kids. when i think of baby p it took me months to get over the feelings i felt for that little boy, and i did not even know the lovely little boy . how can anyone fail to spot all those injuries on his body, they just were not doing their job properly. yet a lot of innocent people were having their kids taken away if they cant do their job right.. then get rid. common sense is the key to these children. not just an educated wrapped up in cotton wool social worker
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?[/p][/quote]loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN[/p][/quote]hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far. As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it. Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes. Why were they leaving the profession all over the country? Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council? Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with you , unfortunately though, money seems to be the priority over the welfare of these kids. when i think of baby p it took me months to get over the feelings i felt for that little boy, and i did not even know the lovely little boy . how can anyone fail to spot all those injuries on his body, they just were not doing their job properly. yet a lot of innocent people were having their kids taken away if they cant do their job right.. then get rid. common sense is the key to these children. not just an educated wrapped up in cotton wool social worker hantslass
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Fri 7 Mar 14

car driver says...

Lets just take a minute and reflect back children have suffered here due to social services department never mind arguing between yourselves Name and shame them give the little ones a small piece of justice .
Lets just take a minute and reflect back children have suffered here due to social services department never mind arguing between yourselves Name and shame them give the little ones a small piece of justice . car driver
  • Score: 5

1:25am Sat 8 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

The strikes were not even necessary that to me makes this all the more heartbreaking.
The Tory group ARE NOT responsible for the tragic loss of these 4 boys in 2011.
The Chief Executive ALISTAIR NEILL, and NOT THE TORY GROUP had signed the sent letter to All Staff dated 19th January 2011. Why was this made so political? Because Labour/Union Council couldn't see anything other than ousting the Tory group from Administration and replace with Labour and their Union buddies.

The letter represented the START of the pre-consultation phase for posts affected by the planned new organisation of services.
He writes to explain the new proposals will have a direct and significant impact on the councils future structure of serviices and on the councils management structure.
These pre-consultation proposals are being put forward with a view to implementation from early on in the new financial year.
He also adds, these measures are designed to address both the very severe financial position facing Southampton City Council and fundamental changes to the operational environment in which all councils will work in the future.
He proposes to reduce the management structure of the organisation by approx 20%. The reduction equating to between 35-40 posts, with proportionally more reductions at the higher levels.
By management structure, ALISTAIR NEILL STATES that, HE MEANS THOSE MAINLY AT DIRECTOR LEVEL, LEVEL 1 MANAGERS AND THE TIER OF MANAGERS BELOW. This also reveals the proposals did NOT EVER include....Bin Men, ,Itchen Toll Staff, or Library Staff, or Social Work Staff, not even Parking Wardens or Street Cleaners either.

The proposals would have saved a gross of £2m in a full year. The savings were an addition to the previously proposed changes to the pay terms and conditions.

Now instead we're faced with the reality of the fact, that, the lives of 4 children have been lost and no-one THAT WAS involved wants to speak the truth? The other Major reality as well is an Obscene amount of Council/Taxpayers Money had been spent. Just not at the right time nor in the place it was supposed to be spent.

Yes Royston was the Tory leader, but Chief Exec was in charge once letters from Chief Exec has gone to directorate it is then the delegated responsibility falls on the shoulders of the directors , Senior officers, HR, line manager to ensure that all relevant staff are forwarded a copy.....

Ms Garner's union buddies should advise her on telling untruths in such a public manner..
It was job of the Senior Officers, they should have raised a flag. When Tory group were eventually made aware, the money WAS made available in 2011 from the leadership Tory group to children's services directorate for use by the directors, officers heads of service, because these staff members are closer to frontline it is deemed they are best placed to decide where they put this money.
Only it transpires these ( who I know now to be ) Labour/union council management that were in employment whilst under the 2011 Tory administration, didn't actually act in the manner of which they were supposed to....
The strikes were not even necessary that to me makes this all the more heartbreaking. The Tory group ARE NOT responsible for the tragic loss of these 4 boys in 2011. The Chief Executive ALISTAIR NEILL, and NOT THE TORY GROUP had signed the sent letter to All Staff dated 19th January 2011. Why was this made so political? Because Labour/Union Council couldn't see anything other than ousting the Tory group from Administration and replace with Labour and their Union buddies. The letter represented the START of the pre-consultation phase for posts affected by the planned new organisation of services. He writes to explain the new proposals will have a direct and significant impact on the councils future structure of serviices and on the councils management structure. These pre-consultation proposals are being put forward with a view to implementation from early on in the new financial year. He also adds, these measures are designed to address both the very severe financial position facing Southampton City Council and fundamental changes to the operational environment in which all councils will work in the future. He proposes to reduce the management structure of the organisation by approx 20%. The reduction equating to between 35-40 posts, with proportionally more reductions at the higher levels. By management structure, ALISTAIR NEILL STATES that, HE MEANS THOSE MAINLY AT DIRECTOR LEVEL, LEVEL 1 MANAGERS AND THE TIER OF MANAGERS BELOW. This also reveals the proposals did NOT EVER include....Bin Men, ,Itchen Toll Staff, or Library Staff, or Social Work Staff, not even Parking Wardens or Street Cleaners either. The proposals would have saved a gross of £2m in a full year. The savings were an addition to the previously proposed changes to the pay terms and conditions. Now instead we're faced with the reality of the fact, that, the lives of 4 children have been lost and no-one THAT WAS involved wants to speak the truth? The other Major reality as well is an Obscene amount of Council/Taxpayers Money had been spent. Just not at the right time nor in the place it was supposed to be spent. Yes Royston was the Tory leader, but Chief Exec was in charge once letters from Chief Exec has gone to directorate it is then the delegated responsibility falls on the shoulders of the directors , Senior officers, HR, line manager to ensure that all relevant staff are forwarded a copy..... Ms Garner's union buddies should advise her on telling untruths in such a public manner.. It was job of the Senior Officers, they should have raised a flag. When Tory group were eventually made aware, the money WAS made available in 2011 from the leadership Tory group to children's services directorate for use by the directors, officers heads of service, because these staff members are closer to frontline it is deemed they are best placed to decide where they put this money. Only it transpires these ( who I know now to be ) Labour/union council management that were in employment whilst under the 2011 Tory administration, didn't actually act in the manner of which they were supposed to.... Ronnie G
  • Score: 3

5:51am Sat 8 Mar 14

skeptik says...

Pay the rate to get the best - in the public sector have we not all heard that, we pay a rate to reflect the level of responsibility - yet when they make a pigs ear of it all. 'No one person is responsible'- odd that they can find people to pay bonuses, yet cannot identify them when they show incompetence. There is something about politics today that is attracting fools - I know not what it is - but the evidence is abundant. Our view is always - 'blame the other lot'.
Pay the rate to get the best - in the public sector have we not all heard that, we pay a rate to reflect the level of responsibility - yet when they make a pigs ear of it all. 'No one person is responsible'- odd that they can find people to pay bonuses, yet cannot identify them when they show incompetence. There is something about politics today that is attracting fools - I know not what it is - but the evidence is abundant. Our view is always - 'blame the other lot'. skeptik
  • Score: 2

7:30am Sat 8 Mar 14

thinklikealocal says...

The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history. thinklikealocal
  • Score: -1

7:55am Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
But extra money was provided to in effect restore pay to this group of workers & as it is said all over the country Experienced social workers were leaving the job.
so is it not a case of social workers no longer wanted to be associated with the deaths of children that happened in several cities in the country so were leaving the profession?
Did Labour/Liberal councils shoulder the blame in areas that these poor children died? NO they didn't the blame was put at the management of social services in those areas.
So why is a Unison boss & many of you left wingers/union members trying to blame a local Tory council(ex) just before a local election?
I find it disgusting that this is being made political instead of seeing what happened rectifying it(which they say they've now done) & remembering the tragic loss of children's life's & making sure it never happens again
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]But extra money was provided to in effect restore pay to this group of workers & as it is said all over the country Experienced social workers were leaving the job. so is it not a case of social workers no longer wanted to be associated with the deaths of children that happened in several cities in the country so were leaving the profession? Did Labour/Liberal councils shoulder the blame in areas that these poor children died? NO they didn't the blame was put at the management of social services in those areas. So why is a Unison boss & many of you left wingers/union members trying to blame a local Tory council(ex) just before a local election? I find it disgusting that this is being made political instead of seeing what happened rectifying it(which they say they've now done) & remembering the tragic loss of children's life's & making sure it never happens again loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:55am Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
But extra money was provided to in effect restore pay to this group of workers & as it is said all over the country Experienced social workers were leaving the job.
so is it not a case of social workers no longer wanted to be associated with the deaths of children that happened in several cities in the country so were leaving the profession?
Did Labour/Liberal councils shoulder the blame in areas that these poor children died? NO they didn't the blame was put at the management of social services in those areas.
So why is a Unison boss & many of you left wingers/union members trying to blame a local Tory council(ex) just before a local election?
I find it disgusting that this is being made political instead of seeing what happened rectifying it(which they say they've now done) & remembering the tragic loss of children's life's & making sure it never happens again
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]But extra money was provided to in effect restore pay to this group of workers & as it is said all over the country Experienced social workers were leaving the job. so is it not a case of social workers no longer wanted to be associated with the deaths of children that happened in several cities in the country so were leaving the profession? Did Labour/Liberal councils shoulder the blame in areas that these poor children died? NO they didn't the blame was put at the management of social services in those areas. So why is a Unison boss & many of you left wingers/union members trying to blame a local Tory council(ex) just before a local election? I find it disgusting that this is being made political instead of seeing what happened rectifying it(which they say they've now done) & remembering the tragic loss of children's life's & making sure it never happens again loosehead
  • Score: 4

7:56am Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?
loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN
hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far.
As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it.
Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes.
Why were they leaving the profession all over the country?
Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council?
Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.
Again you do not know what you are talking about hantsless
accusing someone of being a member or once being a member of the BNP shows you quite clearly don't know what your talking about!
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]I've never supported BNP so where the hell did you get that rubbish from?[/p][/quote]loosehead take no notice of what kso16 it seems to be against whatever people say i think it must be a social worker getting everything wrong AGAIN[/p][/quote]hantslass i had many west indian friends & Indian I got on really well with the Thais when I lived there but not the Brits & I'm married to a Thai so this is going way to far. As I've said in my posts the blame can be put on many people it all depends on how you look at it. Did Children Social Workers get more money whilst other workers were getting cuts?Yes. Why were they leaving the profession all over the country? Why has a Union boss found it right to use the death of these children to attack a Tory council? Where were the social workers who were looking after this case ? the questions are endless & I for one don't want to point the finger at anyone or any group or party as it was a tragedy so let them attack me but at least let them tell the truth.[/p][/quote]Again you do not know what you are talking about hantsless[/p][/quote]accusing someone of being a member or once being a member of the BNP shows you quite clearly don't know what your talking about! loosehead
  • Score: 2

8:33am Sat 8 Mar 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -2

9:18am Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU! loosehead
  • Score: 3

9:46am Sat 8 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
As this is out & out slander can you tell me who you are?
I have reported this post so come on you are good at committing slander so why not be brave & give us your name?
What a HYPOCRITE you are.
.
Quite happy to vomit your bile on other posters ... yet as soon as some has a go you are up in arms and reporting the poster ........ and you revert to wanting his name. ... how sad you are
.
You really are low life ...... and always play the "injured party"
.
Disgusting individual
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]As this is out & out slander can you tell me who you are? I have reported this post so come on you are good at committing slander so why not be brave & give us your name?[/p][/quote]What a HYPOCRITE you are. . Quite happy to vomit your bile on other posters ... yet as soon as some has a go you are up in arms and reporting the poster ........ and you revert to wanting his name. ... how sad you are . You really are low life ...... and always play the "injured party" . Disgusting individual Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -4

5:07pm Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.
Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s
As this is out & out slander can you tell me who you are?
I have reported this post so come on you are good at committing slander so why not be brave & give us your name?
What a HYPOCRITE you are.
.
Quite happy to vomit your bile on other posters ... yet as soon as some has a go you are up in arms and reporting the poster ........ and you revert to wanting his name. ... how sad you are
.
You really are low life ...... and always play the "injured party"
.
Disgusting individual
have I ever accused you of belonging to a far Left Party?
Have I accused you of being part of say Militant tendency?
Call me a Tory what ever or even a UKIP sympathiser but to say I'm a member or was a member of BNP is a step to far & if you can't see that then you've just proven every thing I've said about you
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Loosehead you need to grow up and accept when your party messes up and lives are lost that is *your* responsibility. When things go well then you can also take the credit.[/p][/quote]Loosehead used to support bnp in the 80s[/p][/quote]As this is out & out slander can you tell me who you are? I have reported this post so come on you are good at committing slander so why not be brave & give us your name?[/p][/quote]What a HYPOCRITE you are. . Quite happy to vomit your bile on other posters ... yet as soon as some has a go you are up in arms and reporting the poster ........ and you revert to wanting his name. ... how sad you are . You really are low life ...... and always play the "injured party" . Disgusting individual[/p][/quote]have I ever accused you of belonging to a far Left Party? Have I accused you of being part of say Militant tendency? Call me a Tory what ever or even a UKIP sympathiser but to say I'm a member or was a member of BNP is a step to far & if you can't see that then you've just proven every thing I've said about you loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Sat 8 Mar 14

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong. thinklikealocal
  • Score: -1

8:40pm Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
please understand this instead of attacking me as you & others always do.
I think it's wrong to blame individuals or even the councillors.
If as the article says the reasons behind this tragedy has been rectified so in your seat of all knowing what happens in the council departments(I'm just an outsider).
Can you tell me what working practices have been changed since this tragedy?
In cases similar to this in many other cities it wasn't the local council that had the finger of blame pointed at them but the Social Services management so why do you think it should be different here?
Is it because in all the other cases there was a Labour council & here it was a Tory council?
So are you like this Unison boss trying to make political head way out of a tragedy?
If it was working practices put in place by the management then it was a managerial decision & the buck stops there if on the other hand it was a tragedy of errors all concerned have to shoulder some of the blame but really to use this or any similar incident as a way to score cheap points against any political party is wrong
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]please understand this instead of attacking me as you & others always do. I think it's wrong to blame individuals or even the councillors. If as the article says the reasons behind this tragedy has been rectified so in your seat of all knowing what happens in the council departments(I'm just an outsider). Can you tell me what working practices have been changed since this tragedy? In cases similar to this in many other cities it wasn't the local council that had the finger of blame pointed at them but the Social Services management so why do you think it should be different here? Is it because in all the other cases there was a Labour council & here it was a Tory council? So are you like this Unison boss trying to make political head way out of a tragedy? If it was working practices put in place by the management then it was a managerial decision & the buck stops there if on the other hand it was a tragedy of errors all concerned have to shoulder some of the blame but really to use this or any similar incident as a way to score cheap points against any political party is wrong loosehead
  • Score: -1

8:43pm Sat 8 Mar 14

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again loosehead
  • Score: 1

11:25pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Jesus_02 says...

loosehead wrote:
Let's get it right! I go on strike I work to rule & children die this isn't my fault but the people who cut my wages so making me angry & getting me on strike?
Wasn't it Social services especially Childrens that saw an increase in pay whilst others took a pay cut?
I can't see how anyone can blame anyone else for the withdrawal of your services & then the consequences of that withdrawal?
ACAS was called so why didn't these social workers insist on their Unions to negotiate? As we know those Unions refused to talk whilst at ACAS.
You the workers decided to withdraw your Labour not the council so the blame rests with you or does a few quid come before people's lives?
If Social Workers DID know how vulnerable these children were how could they not look after them? Money?
They didnt strike they.... left.....for better paid jobs
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's get it right! I go on strike I work to rule & children die this isn't my fault but the people who cut my wages so making me angry & getting me on strike? Wasn't it Social services especially Childrens that saw an increase in pay whilst others took a pay cut? I can't see how anyone can blame anyone else for the withdrawal of your services & then the consequences of that withdrawal? ACAS was called so why didn't these social workers insist on their Unions to negotiate? As we know those Unions refused to talk whilst at ACAS. You the workers decided to withdraw your Labour not the council so the blame rests with you or does a few quid come before people's lives? If Social Workers DID know how vulnerable these children were how could they not look after them? Money?[/p][/quote]They didnt strike they.... left.....for better paid jobs Jesus_02
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Jesus_02 says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
1: Why it happened....experien
ce staff where undervalued and left
2: How to make sure it doesnt happen again - value your staff

If this was a private business it would have gone bust..it wasnt so it didnt , kids just died...oops
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]1: Why it happened....experien ce staff where undervalued and left 2: How to make sure it doesnt happen again - value your staff If this was a private business it would have gone bust..it wasnt so it didnt , kids just died...oops Jesus_02
  • Score: 1

1:05am Sun 9 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously.
The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened.
Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut.
Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for.
It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies.
The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010.
The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected.

The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers.
When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff?
There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled.

A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April.
Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice.
It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started.
Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes.
I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously. The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened. Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut. Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for. It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies. The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010. The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected. The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers. When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff? There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled. A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April. Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice. It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started. Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes. I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people... Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

1:39am Sun 9 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people?? Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

8:10am Sun 9 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy loosehead
  • Score: 1

8:15am Sun 9 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Jesus_02 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
1: Why it happened....experien

ce staff where undervalued and left
2: How to make sure it doesnt happen again - value your staff

If this was a private business it would have gone bust..it wasnt so it didnt , kids just died...oops
So how has the council shown it values staff? Under the Tories pay was restored & a review of their wages was put in place so besides throwing money at the social workers the money this council says vwe haven't got how have they restored & shown they value them?
Are you saying all social workers only care about how much they can get & not the welfare of children?
[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]1: Why it happened....experien ce staff where undervalued and left 2: How to make sure it doesnt happen again - value your staff If this was a private business it would have gone bust..it wasnt so it didnt , kids just died...oops[/p][/quote]So how has the council shown it values staff? Under the Tories pay was restored & a review of their wages was put in place so besides throwing money at the social workers the money this council says vwe haven't got how have they restored & shown they value them? Are you saying all social workers only care about how much they can get & not the welfare of children? loosehead
  • Score: 1

8:22pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics.
But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it.
It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time.
Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise.

I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011.

These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions...

The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line.
Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy[/p][/quote]Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics. But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it. It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time. Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise. I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011. These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions... The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line. Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons. Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

7:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

thinklikealocal says...

Ronnie G wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously.
The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened.
Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut.
Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for.
It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies.
The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010.
The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected.

The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers.
When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff?
There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled.

A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April.
Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice.
It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started.
Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes.
I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...
So you think Social Workers (graduates) earn less than £22k and were therefore not affected by the pay cuts? Think again. They had their pay cut - FACT! I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely enraged staff were at the what was being proposed and the arrogant attitude of Royston Smith. Their are plenty of staff there who can think for themselves, please don't make the mistake of assuming we are all union puppets. Most of us are better educated and have more Local Government experience than Royston Smith could muster in a lifetime.

The extra money being talked about was granted following the Ofsted inspection. Shame it took that rather than understanding the pressure being placed on an understaffed department following the huge rise in the number of looked after children following the Baby P case. The extra money offered to Social Workers after the administration realised what a catastrophic mistake they had made was an entirely seperate issue.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously. The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened. Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut. Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for. It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies. The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010. The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected. The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers. When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff? There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled. A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April. Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice. It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started. Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes. I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...[/p][/quote]So you think Social Workers (graduates) earn less than £22k and were therefore not affected by the pay cuts? Think again. They had their pay cut - FACT! I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely enraged staff were at the what was being proposed and the arrogant attitude of Royston Smith. Their are plenty of staff there who can think for themselves, please don't make the mistake of assuming we are all union puppets. Most of us are better educated and have more Local Government experience than Royston Smith could muster in a lifetime. The extra money being talked about was granted following the Ofsted inspection. Shame it took that rather than understanding the pressure being placed on an understaffed department following the huge rise in the number of looked after children following the Baby P case. The extra money offered to Social Workers after the administration realised what a catastrophic mistake they had made was an entirely seperate issue. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Mon 10 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics.
But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it.
It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time.
Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise.

I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011.

These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions...

The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line.
Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.
Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar.
The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go.
the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it?
There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't?
Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy[/p][/quote]Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics. But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it. It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time. Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise. I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011. These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions... The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line. Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.[/p][/quote]Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar. The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go. the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it? There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't? Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union loosehead
  • Score: 1

9:25pm Mon 10 Mar 14

hantslass says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics.
But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it.
It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time.
Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise.

I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011.

These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions...

The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line.
Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.
Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar.
The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go.
the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it?
There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't?
Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union
the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy[/p][/quote]Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics. But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it. It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time. Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise. I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011. These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions... The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line. Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.[/p][/quote]Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar. The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go. the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it? There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't? Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union[/p][/quote]the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences hantslass
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously.
The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened.
Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut.
Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for.
It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies.
The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010.
The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected.

The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers.
When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff?
There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled.

A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April.
Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice.
It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started.
Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes.
I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...
So you think Social Workers (graduates) earn less than £22k and were therefore not affected by the pay cuts? Think again. They had their pay cut - FACT! I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely enraged staff were at the what was being proposed and the arrogant attitude of Royston Smith. Their are plenty of staff there who can think for themselves, please don't make the mistake of assuming we are all union puppets. Most of us are better educated and have more Local Government experience than Royston Smith could muster in a lifetime.

The extra money being talked about was granted following the Ofsted inspection. Shame it took that rather than understanding the pressure being placed on an understaffed department following the huge rise in the number of looked after children following the Baby P case. The extra money offered to Social Workers after the administration realised what a catastrophic mistake they had made was an entirely seperate issue.
What I said was Frontline Social workers should not have been affected, that was not the plan by Tory group. No frontline workers were to be affected, it was the misleading and sh1t stirring from Union Labour cllr/workers/managem
ent that caused the strikes for Political Reasons Only. FACT!

It was nigh on a 2 year tunnel visioned agenda by Union & Labour to discredit the Tory led Administration.
Royston Smith was not arrogant. He had offered on two occasions to meet with concerned staff, yet no staff turned up? And why was that?
Because a union meeting was arranged for same time in separate place and non union workers were not informed. I know this because I'd accidentally received the letter I wasn't given almost one year later!
I have no political preference but I can say I found Royston Smith as a person a **** sight more human than Richard Williams.
In the end I ended up meeting with Chief Exec Alistair Neill, him too I found very polite and happy to explain the situation in a professional manner.
You say don't treat you all like union puppets and that you can think for yourselves, yet if I were thinking for myself as a social worker I would not leave my post. I'm sorry but the importance of the job of protecting children far outweighs a bit of extra dosh.
Labour in opposition caused the unrest between workers. There was nothing that could not be resolved, IF the officers made the Tory group aware in the first place .
The Unions deliberately misled frontline workers backed up by underhanded mismanagement.
The understaffing of departments is delegated to Senior Officers, Chief directors of each department. It is the job of those people to put their concerns or proposals forward to the ruling administration.
Although If these people are politically corrupt then it's as clear as day that messages, letters are not going to always arrive or get sent when they should......
FACT.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously. The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened. Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut. Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for. It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies. The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010. The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected. The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers. When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff? There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled. A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April. Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice. It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started. Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes. I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...[/p][/quote]So you think Social Workers (graduates) earn less than £22k and were therefore not affected by the pay cuts? Think again. They had their pay cut - FACT! I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely enraged staff were at the what was being proposed and the arrogant attitude of Royston Smith. Their are plenty of staff there who can think for themselves, please don't make the mistake of assuming we are all union puppets. Most of us are better educated and have more Local Government experience than Royston Smith could muster in a lifetime. The extra money being talked about was granted following the Ofsted inspection. Shame it took that rather than understanding the pressure being placed on an understaffed department following the huge rise in the number of looked after children following the Baby P case. The extra money offered to Social Workers after the administration realised what a catastrophic mistake they had made was an entirely seperate issue.[/p][/quote]What I said was Frontline Social workers should not have been affected, that was not the plan by Tory group. No frontline workers were to be affected, it was the misleading and sh1t stirring from Union Labour cllr/workers/managem ent that caused the strikes for Political Reasons Only. FACT! It was nigh on a 2 year tunnel visioned agenda by Union & Labour to discredit the Tory led Administration. Royston Smith was not arrogant. He had offered on two occasions to meet with concerned staff, yet no staff turned up? And why was that? Because a union meeting was arranged for same time in separate place and non union workers were not informed. I know this because I'd accidentally received the letter I wasn't given almost one year later! I have no political preference but I can say I found Royston Smith as a person a **** sight more human than Richard Williams. In the end I ended up meeting with Chief Exec Alistair Neill, him too I found very polite and happy to explain the situation in a professional manner. You say don't treat you all like union puppets and that you can think for yourselves, yet if I were thinking for myself as a social worker I would not leave my post. I'm sorry but the importance of the job of protecting children far outweighs a bit of extra dosh. Labour in opposition caused the unrest between workers. There was nothing that could not be resolved, IF the officers made the Tory group aware in the first place . The Unions deliberately misled frontline workers backed up by underhanded mismanagement. The understaffing of departments is delegated to Senior Officers, Chief directors of each department. It is the job of those people to put their concerns or proposals forward to the ruling administration. Although If these people are politically corrupt then it's as clear as day that messages, letters are not going to always arrive or get sent when they should...... FACT. Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics.
But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it.
It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time.
Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise.

I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011.

These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions...

The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line.
Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.
Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar.
The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go.
the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it?
There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't?
Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union
the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences
I can see That You are someone in the know.
Good for you ;)
[quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy[/p][/quote]Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics. But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it. It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time. Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise. I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011. These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions... The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line. Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.[/p][/quote]Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar. The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go. the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it? There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't? Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union[/p][/quote]the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences[/p][/quote]I can see That You are someone in the know. Good for you ;) Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

5:54pm Tue 11 Mar 14

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously.
The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened.
Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut.
Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for.
It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies.
The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010.
The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected.

The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers.
When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff?
There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled.

A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April.
Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice.
It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started.
Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes.
I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...
So you think Social Workers (graduates) earn less than £22k and were therefore not affected by the pay cuts? Think again. They had their pay cut - FACT! I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely enraged staff were at the what was being proposed and the arrogant attitude of Royston Smith. Their are plenty of staff there who can think for themselves, please don't make the mistake of assuming we are all union puppets. Most of us are better educated and have more Local Government experience than Royston Smith could muster in a lifetime.

The extra money being talked about was granted following the Ofsted inspection. Shame it took that rather than understanding the pressure being placed on an understaffed department following the huge rise in the number of looked after children following the Baby P case. The extra money offered to Social Workers after the administration realised what a catastrophic mistake they had made was an entirely seperate issue.
FACT! at the last meeting between the Unions & Tory council a deal was reached where the pay cuts would only effect those on over £22,000 & the Unions left the meeting promising to put it to their members only for UNITE to renege on the deal the minute they walked out of the meeting.
You read this paper so you know that's the real truth yet you won't admit it why?
have you some political agenda?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]But that is why i'm still standing with what i said previously. The Strikes did not need to happen. They should not have happened. Just as frontline Social Workers should not have been involved and no-one on 22k or less would get paycut. Labour Councillors refused to take a pay cut, and they didn't, but then their Union/Labour members who were employees in the council on a senior level were facing a cut of pay in their service management roles, so thats what all the kick off was for. It was a certain tier of management that were involved in this misleading of information and putting the wrong people up for cuts to their pay or redundancies. The proposed changes to terms and conditions (pay cuts) were first proposed around November 2010. The aim of the proposed changes to pay and conditions is to ensure that front-line services and jobs were protected. The policy was a report actually combined by the Chief Exec, Royston and Chief Officers. When you say Social Workers do you mean those on the frontline or those higher up the Pay Grade, Office Based staff? There was no specific instructions to cut the pay from frontline social workers. Soon as Tory ruling was( finally ) made aware by Council Officers, it was reversed with a pay review to be scheduled. A corporate meeting was held between the Executive Director of Resources and union representatives in order to share all staff proposals impacting on the 2011/12 budget. A further meeting involving the Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Leader will be held with the unions on Mon 15th November 2010. if it wasnt for the fact that some employees, it was discovered, had conveniently not received some important information relating to some of the proposals, then the council would have legally been able to commence implementation on the original date of 4th April. Instead because paperwork was 'witheld' the Chief Exec Alistair Neill had to give a further 3 months notice. It was in this period on May 25 2011 that the strikes started. Why, if not for complete political gain by certain Council employees in management, did the strikes happen? Some of these striking employees were/are Labour Cllrs. They sat in on council meetings, they knew what was coming and when. Miss Hayley Garner is selective, as either way she was employed in Adult Services by Southampton City Council in 2011. I'm guessing too, that was before, during but not after the strikes. I'm sorry but to me, her employment role, towards end of summer last year, as Boss of Unison suggests she is not trustworthy or credible. The Labour Council have stitched up and lied both to the Tory Group and the Unions but mostly it's really stitched up and lied to the City of Southampton and its people...[/p][/quote]So you think Social Workers (graduates) earn less than £22k and were therefore not affected by the pay cuts? Think again. They had their pay cut - FACT! I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely enraged staff were at the what was being proposed and the arrogant attitude of Royston Smith. Their are plenty of staff there who can think for themselves, please don't make the mistake of assuming we are all union puppets. Most of us are better educated and have more Local Government experience than Royston Smith could muster in a lifetime. The extra money being talked about was granted following the Ofsted inspection. Shame it took that rather than understanding the pressure being placed on an understaffed department following the huge rise in the number of looked after children following the Baby P case. The extra money offered to Social Workers after the administration realised what a catastrophic mistake they had made was an entirely seperate issue.[/p][/quote]FACT! at the last meeting between the Unions & Tory council a deal was reached where the pay cuts would only effect those on over £22,000 & the Unions left the meeting promising to put it to their members only for UNITE to renege on the deal the minute they walked out of the meeting. You read this paper so you know that's the real truth yet you won't admit it why? have you some political agenda? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Tue 11 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics.
But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it.
It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time.
Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise.

I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011.

These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions...

The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line.
Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.
Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar.
The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go.
the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it?
There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't?
Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union
the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences
I can see That You are someone in the know.
Good for you ;)
why no reply to me? I talked to many refuse collectors many knew me from my Rugby club & many were against the strikes yet a minority were Union & they voted for iot so the rest had to strike does this justify the action taken? NO
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy[/p][/quote]Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics. But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it. It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time. Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise. I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011. These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions... The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line. Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.[/p][/quote]Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar. The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go. the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it? There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't? Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union[/p][/quote]the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences[/p][/quote]I can see That You are someone in the know. Good for you ;)[/p][/quote]why no reply to me? I talked to many refuse collectors many knew me from my Rugby club & many were against the strikes yet a minority were Union & they voted for iot so the rest had to strike does this justify the action taken? NO loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Tue 11 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
hantslass wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration.

This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively.

You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.
I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities.

The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.
So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault?
If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble?
In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there?
So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left?
So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU!
Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published?

Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here.....

No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.
I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it!
Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions.


It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued.

Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut.
So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again
Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child.
It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it.
Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had?
Who was the middle people??
Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here?
It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy
Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics.
But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it.
It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time.
Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise.

I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011.

These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions...

The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line.
Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.
Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar.
The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go.
the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it?
There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't?
Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union
the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences
I can see That You are someone in the know.
Good for you ;)
Ronnie I replied to one poster telling them that if a post in another department was available as a person wanted redundancy & you were capable of filling that post you could move into that department.
Moulton,Royston were in this paper saying that to all council employees who faced redundancy or might face it in the future yet Middle management were telling the workers they couldn't do it?
I told that person & gave them Moulton's mobile & e-mail addresses & spoke to him & he was willing to meet that person if they still worked or was made redundant to sort it out for them.
so why were management breaking the terms set out by the council? POLITICAL
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: The strike was never about the restructure of management posts. It was about pay cuts. Alistair Neil may have signed the letters to staff but the policy was that of the ruling Tory administration. This article is not about how much funding was available to the Social Services Department, it's about the very high number of Social Workers who left the Council when their pay was cut and the effect that had on the Council's ability to carry out their duties effectively. You can spin all you like but you cannot alter history.[/p][/quote]I recall that just before the pay dispute the Council recruited some children's social workers from the USA. They were apparently very good at their jobs and many of them had experience from working in places like downtown Detroit and the Bronx. Unfortunately because of the action taken by the Conservative administration on workers pay and conditions, these very well qualified social workers - recruited at some expense to the local taxpayer - felt undervalued and so left either to return back home or to get jobs in other local authorities. The Conservative council leaders at the time - two of whom were hell bent on becoming our MPs - allowed their ideological disdain for public service workers in general and trade unions in particular to blind them to the very predicable and horrific consequences of their political actions.[/p][/quote]So are you saying in every city,town or village if children die through mistakes made by the social services departments then it's the council of the times fault? If so exactly how many Labour & Liberal councils could be in trouble? In London there's at least one Labour council that had a case like this isn't there? So the Tory council recruited Americans who were very good? the Tories actually ploughed more money into this department yet these Americans left? So another Left Winger trying to make political gain from the death of children! SHAME ON YOU![/p][/quote]Loosehead, you are obviously ahead of the game here because you have already had acces to the serious case review report. You must have had access to the report to state that the children died as a result of mistakes by social workers in Southampton. Can I ask you you how you had access to the report before it was published? Extra money may have gone in to the department but tis was AFTER the staff had left, so, not relevant to the discussion here..... No one is trying to make political gain out of this, we are having a discussion about what went wrong.[/p][/quote]I think this shows you are wrong because this really tries to point the finger at the then Tory council so try reading it! Although welcoming the changes, Unison boss Hayley Garner blamed the administration for the failings at that time, as during that year Southampton City Council employees were locked in a bitter dispute with the authority over pay and conditions. It led to a series of walkouts which prompted warnings by social workers that children would suffer if the dispute continued. Miss Garner, who worked in adult social services in 2011, said morale had reached rock bottom as staff felt under-valued after being told their pay would be cut. So reading this she was blaming the Tories not looking at why it happened & how to make sure it never happens again[/p][/quote]Being in any job that involved the welfare and protection of children, I'm sorry but no way, I could not walk-out for the fear of feeling responsible if something were to happen to a child. It wouldn't happen. I just couldn't do it. Why weren't the Social Workers Talking to Royston And Chief Exec Alistair personally over the low moral and pay issues they had? Who was the middle people??[/p][/quote]Ronnie I agree with you & in every case of this type across the country the head of social services has taken the blame even in Labour councils so why are they trying to blame the Tories here? It's political & nothing to do with this tragedy[/p][/quote]Prior to 2012, I had no time for anything with regards to Politics. But as our Labour Council in Southampton are Aware, there are those who can't stand up and shout when they feel they have been wronged that just have to sit there, shut up and take it. It's that arrogant obstructive, behaviour that does me, Loose every single time. Every decision this Labour Council makes is only for their political gain. You only have to observe the areas of service they were actively part of whilst in opposition to see that they play from their own deck o cards, and won't be told otherwise. I believe there were 17 Unison members that did not sign up to the new terms and conditions implemented on 11th July 2011. These were then told by Union Bosses that they were jobless because they hadn't signed up... Union bosses also added that these council employees were welcome to carry on with their tribunal claims as they had the right to, but if they were to do so then they would have to proceed WITHOUT the assistance or financial aid of the Unions... The Tory group may not get things spot on ( who does?) and as i've discovered it's a very time consuming career, but their intentions were for the protection and welfare of us and our city all the way down the line. Their only mistake was to think this Labour lot were in it for the same genuine reasons.[/p][/quote]Are you a council worker maybe ex council worker? I have quoted Refuse collectors & other council workers I talked to when the strikes were taking place & I was made out to be a storyteller(fantasy) & a liar. The workers I talked to said if only Royston had talked to them I said he turned up for a meeting with staff for only two to turn up & they said the Unions had told the others not to go. the ones I was talking to said no one had told them & they never received notifications of it? There managers & supervisors were suppose to have told them but didn't? Unite,Unison & the Council(tory) had talks where the pay cuts would start at above £22,000 & all legal action would be dropped all parties signed up to this & the Unions were to put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & then break the agreement so this could only have been a political strike & no thought for the workers by at least one union[/p][/quote]the unions are just a greedy lot.. they are really out for themselves they like to feel they control the highest paid workforce, they seem to ruin our economy teachers dock workers etc! they were good paid jobs and yet the unions always encouraged them to strike for more money . it did'nt matter a lot of ordinary people suffered the consequences[/p][/quote]I can see That You are someone in the know. Good for you ;)[/p][/quote]Ronnie I replied to one poster telling them that if a post in another department was available as a person wanted redundancy & you were capable of filling that post you could move into that department. Moulton,Royston were in this paper saying that to all council employees who faced redundancy or might face it in the future yet Middle management were telling the workers they couldn't do it? I told that person & gave them Moulton's mobile & e-mail addresses & spoke to him & he was willing to meet that person if they still worked or was made redundant to sort it out for them. so why were management breaking the terms set out by the council? POLITICAL loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree