|
p2
Hackney's regular imitation of a Third World township is over - at
least for the time being. Stoke Newington pavements can be seen again, the swirling tides
of filthy paper in the High Street are back to their normal levels and the black bags
spill only their usual amount of garbage onto the pavements. Those citizens of our borough
who are none too fussy can now chuck their fag packets and fried chicken boxes on the
ground in the fairly safe knowledge that some will be picked up.
 As we reported in our last issue, a Council committee took a major decision to
do something about rubbish. Startling in itself, perhaps, but when they announced their
proposal to award a contract to a private operator to empty bins and clean the streets,
the burger really hit the fan. Serviceteam, who tidy up Lambeth and Camden, were to be
given a one year contract from 1 September 2000.
What happened? First, a row broke out on the Council as some complained that they were
being asked to rubber stamp a decision without proper consultation. A further examination
of the bid raised doubts as to whether it would fulfil the requirements at the price
quoted.
Not surprisingly, the unions were also unimpressed as Serviceteam said they required 40
less people. Employment law stipulates that existing jobs are protected when a contract is
awarded to a new employer. To get around this, Council officials hatched a cunning little
plan to transfer all workers to Serviceteam but on arrival the unwanted 40 would
'volunteer' to lose their jobs. They would be paid the equivalent of Hackney Council
redundancy terms. This would have cost quite a bit more than Serviceteam were willing to
fork out. So, generously, the Council offered to fund the difference.
After a trawl of the workforce, it emerged that the only people willing to volunteer were
those who were reckoned to be essential to the whole operation. The unions balloted for a
strike and banned overtime. The rubbish mounted as the weather got warmer - the great
waste manager in the sky always turns up the heat during these disputes and Council
officials floundered through their apologies.
A debate raged within the Labour Party between those who thought that the Council direct
labour organisation (DLO) had not been given a fair chance and the 'modernisers' who
believed that privatisation would deal with a problem that the DLO had failed to resolve.
It was alleged that the DLO was overspending by £250,000 a month. MP Diane Abbott said
she hoped that the split did not indicate I another periodic nervous breakdown' within the
Hackney Labour Group.
As usual, Joe Public was left in the dark. No information was passed direct to residents
and such news as there was had to be gleaned from the pages of local papers, in between
the drugs and murder stories.
 The proposed implementation date of 1 September has long gone. The contract has
not been signed and Serviceteam has bowed out, at least temporarily. Two Council
directors, w h o w e r e associated with the saga, have resigned. Pricewaterhouse Coopers
have been hired - and they don't come cheap to examine 'every aspect' of the budget and
service provision Their report is unlikely to be complimentary.
Meanwhile the in-house team carries on, with some 'beefed-up' management running the show,
according to a Councillor involved in the issue. In the longer term the contract will be
submitted yet again to competitive tender and informed sources say that it is unlikely
that Hackney DLO will be the winner.
All this followed a 'concordat' last year between Hackney Councillors, officials and
management who all pledged to improve the service. If the cock-up that ensued was the
result of this peace agreement, perhaps war would have been preferable. Councillors Pipe
and Ollerenshaw, leaders of Labour and Tories respectively, have issued a joint statement
in their grandly titled role of 'Vice Chairs of Hackney's Policy & Finance Executive'
saying that the Council 'is currently recovering from its difficulties following a work to
rule by its workforce.'
Councillors P & 0 failed to mention the role of senior Council officials in jumping
the gun on privatisation, the indecisiveness and unawareness of Councillors, lack of
planning and the shambles in the streets. To imply that the workforce were responsible for
the problem was wrong and misleading. They were reacting to a situation they did not
create in an attempt to save jobs.
What next? Who knows? Let us have your predictions. The most accurate will win a plastic
dustbin and 50 black bags.
|
. |
