Unit for sale?

[Chris Jones]

At least this is an alternative approach to wholesale redundancies and closure of the unit. It seems that, co-operatives aside, field services and specialist services will be exclusively private sector with curatorial services provided by the county, in the light of the white paper.

[ShadowJack]

All the comments above are very interesting, although largely uninformed. As someone who works for the unit in question, I thought it would be pertinent to correct a few untruths. There are two assumptions being made; firstly, that CAM ARC is in some way funded or subsidised by local government; and secondly, that the unit is in some kind of financial difficulty. Neither of these conjectures is true. The unit has been trading as a successful standalone business for many years, and the business is in excellent financial health. The reason for devolving the unit is primarily to allow it operate more effectively outside of the perceived bureaucracy of local government, giving it greater commercial freedom, and is in line with a nationwide trend of Councils’ shedding any services that are not considered ‘core’ to service delivery policies.

ShadowJack

[Chris Jones]

Thanks for the information. Will this mean the staff will lose any benefits for working for a local authority though?

[Talisien]

quote:Originally posted by ShadowJack

The reason for devolving the unit is primarily to allow it operate more effectively outside of the perceived bureaucracy of local government, giving it greater commercial freedom, and is in line with a nationwide trend of Councils’ shedding any services that are not considered ‘core’ to service delivery policies.

ShadowJack

This is all very well, but there is the question of terms and conditions of employment, where does the profit from the unit go, and what happens to employees pension rights as local government employees. As one who has experienced 'shedding' or services not considered 'core' it indicates the the council are seeking to make savings e.g. pensions, NI contributions, sick leave entitlement. There is no simple correlation to being in profit and not being subsidised. I do hope that I am wrong.

[ShadowJack]

If you read the text of the statement that was originally posted from ESPO you’ll see that this is simply the market testing stage of a proposal to externalise the services provided by CAM ARC. It is by no means certain that the Unit will be privatised.

The funds, which provide staff with the generous (for archaeologists anyway) benefits of pensions, sick leave, NI contributions and training – all have to come out of the income CAM ARC generates as a business. We are not subsidised by the Council and do not receive any financial aid for this. In fact, we contribute funds to the Council to support its other services. It is the main reason why competing with other units operating within the region is such a challenge.

As for staff benefits, pensions, sick etc, we have been informed that should CAM ARC be externalised - agreement would be sought with both staff and UNISON under The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) to preserve employees' terms and conditions.


ShadowJack

[Talisien]

Valid points ShadowJack (I am, however, sadly too familiar with TUPE!).

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by ShadowJack As for staff benefits, pensions, sick etc, we have been informed that should CAM ARC be externalised - agreement would be sought with both staff and UNISON under The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) to preserve employees' terms and conditions.

Can I give some advice re TUPE arrangements. Be afraid. Be very very afraid....

In the first instance, TUPE would not apply if a transfer was made of CAM ARC to another local authority body. The government issues guidelines for how such tranfers should take place, but these are outside of the scope of TUPE.

Secondly, TUPE does not protect pension rights. Sure your Cambs CC pension can be frozen at the point where yous cease to be an employee, but all your new employer has to offer is a 6% contribution to a stakeholder scheme.

Thirdly, say an employee of CAM ARC does not want to work for Borset Archaeology Ltd after a take over is agreed. Can they take redundancy under TUPE? No!! Failure to transfer across will be counted as a resignation at which point an employee does not even retain their rights to redundancy payments.

Fourth, will TUPE automatically apply to this transfer? Only if the takeover body decides to retain the CAM ARC employees pretty much as a discrete economic entity. It is debatable that TUPE would apply to a transfer if the takeover body assimilated the employees of CAM ARC into their general workforce and did not have a specfic contracting division working solely in Cambridgeshire.

Fifth, what happens to union recognition after a transfer? If the new employer retains CAM ARC as a separate economic entity then they have to maintain existing union recogniton and negotiated rights. If however, the new employer assimilates the employee of CAM ARC into their general workforce and and does not have a specfic contracting division working solely in Cambridgeshire, then they do not have to recognise or maintain previous union agreements.


So a whole lot of pitfalls to be aware of.

That said of course there are plenty of models out there which show how public sector bodies can be given a degree of independence and allow their staff to retain the vital link to Local Authority terms and conditions (and I believe one of the counties bordering Cambs has gone though this exercise in the past year).

[leic]

If CAU is part of the local government pensions scheme it is indeed being subsidised as is the whole scheme by future taxpayers. If CAU was taken over by another unit its pensions would presumably be transfered to whatever pension scheme they have. However, most attempts to create independent trusts of museums etc in recent years have collapsed as a one off investment of millions of pounds was needed to secure the pensions of the staff involved. This is why they are seeking a private sector partner. I have no idea how OAU etc provide their pensions but in general private sector pension funds are in bad shape due to Mr Brown and low inflation.

[Talisien]

quote:Originally posted by leic

If CAU is part of the local government pensions scheme it is indeed being subsidised as is the whole scheme by future taxpayers. If CAU was taken over by another unit its pensions would presumably be transfered to whatever pension scheme they have.

Leic

Just to clarify, the 'CAU' is the Cambridge Archaeological Unit and part of the University of Cambridge, not the County Council. CAM ARC, previously known as the AFU, Archaeological Field Unit, is part of Cambridgeshire County Council. These are important differences.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Kevin Wooldridge:

quote:My biggest fear (living as I do in the furthest extreme of East Anglia) is the domino effect that might follow the loss of a cornerstone of local archaeological provision in our region.

I don't think there is any suggestion that the unit will be 'lost' - just that it will have a different parent organisation. If it gains greater commercial freedom as a result, it may well expand.

In general principle, I support the separation of field units from council ownership, because as long as they remain in council ownership there is always the temptation for the curatorial authority to unfairly favour them in monitoring and to pressure clients to use them rather than someone else. I have no reason to believe this happens in Cambridgeshire, but I do have direct experience of it happening in another area, where the senior manager of the unit is also the county archaeologist.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished