It would seem that social workers in Surrey are aiming to ballot for strike action.

Now, generally Wilt is much against strike action especially in the public sector but also where, for example, employees in whatever sector strike because of redundancies or cut backs. What is the ferkin point of doing that, for Gawd sake? Oh I am going to lose my job, I know I will go on strike! Mmmmmmm. It’s like turkeys voting for an early Christmas.

OK, sometimes it might be about making a point but in practical terms it achieves nothing.

If local authority staff aim to strike over pay and conditions, I say let them get on with it. Generally staff are very well paid, including social workers, the conditions of service (sick pay, holidays, pensions etc) are exceptional and working conditions (perhaps with the exception of social workers workloads of late) are pretty good.

Now, working to rule – that seems much more effective. No loss of pay, it sets a limit on the working day and ensures cover for genuine emergencies. That, in particular the current economic climate where there are huge numbers of unemployed, will gain far less contempt from the public and enhance the professional image of the profession.

I must say Wilt is somewhat sympathetic to the plight of social workers taking industrial action on working conditions/workloads (not pay or conditions) but urges the unions and staff to think carefully about the prospect of striking.

Wilt will make a confession, he did take strike action twice in the 80’s and was hitherto (many, many moons ago) a shop steward with NALGO (now Unison). He also withdrew his car with thousands of others when protesting against car allowances, and that action was about the most effective. It reduced efficiency and as some employers hired a pool of cars it also cost a lot of money. It worked in the end whereas the strike action had limited success.

More people are willing to work to rule or remove certain services (e.g. use of personal cars) but strike ballots are usually very divisive.

Think on, colleagues.

However, such action should be limited to workload and working conditions (that could include maintaining silly computer database systems) and should not be over pay and service conditions. Given that is what essentially is at the root of the Surrey situation (workload/working conditions) Wilt will not cross the picket line – indeed he might out of sympathy join them. However, if there is strike action or other action on pay and service conditions you can be certain Wilt will fill some of the gaps left by the strikers or work to rule staff – and Wilt being an ex-shop steward he knows a thing or two about breaking ranks and disrupting, and then waving his dosh at the unfortunate poor (un-paid) picket-line workers. So beware, do not be Turkeys to the slaughter. You will gain no sympathy with the public over protests about pay and gold plated pensions or silly service conditions such as holidays and sick pay. Those will, no doubt whatsoever be changed in fairly short time whoever comes into Government after the next election – and so they should. It will however only affect new entrants (in terms of pensions) and any pay rise will be offset by a reduced service conditions realignment for all.

Do not over emphasise the link between stress of the work (and yes social work is stressful) and salary or conditions of service. There are too many others who do difficult stressful jobs on far less pay and basic conditions of service and the answer is not to bring them up to public service conditions – the answer is to deal with the stress and working conditions. Deal with the route cause and not the symptoms’ i.e. it is the employer’s duty to help assist in this aspect of health and safety.

Do use health and safety legislation (within reason) to manage the continued interface between the employers (management) v staff debate on caseloads and proper support for frontline staff (including first line managers) – those first line managers are essential, but rarely do they get the support they need. They are the key to proper caseload management but are dumped on from high by more senior managers who are in turn dumped on by the politicians (elected members in local authorities).

Support, collaborate with those first line managers in this way and you will be a force to reckon with on workload/working conditions.

Wilt

It seems the GSCC have been up to no good again. Yes, those not very nice people at the GSCC which Wilt considers as firkin Dorks.

In a recent publication the CST deemed the Regulator as disproportionate and ill sourced in its evidence against a prospective Registrant of the GSCC as a social worker. In fact it called the GSCC determination “draconian.” Yes draconian. For those at the GSCC, that means disproportionate and utterly out of order, or put more simply exceedingly harsh; very severe, cruel. Look it up in a dictionary, why don’t you.

It makes me so angry when these people set out to ruin the life and career of perfectly reasonable workers who deserve a great deal better from a regulator. Exactly whose needs are you meeting?

The public – no!

The Profession – no!

Service users – no!

Themselves – yes, you are self serving.

This is the case of Christine Jones who made a few errors and she admits herself was a bit “silly” in a case matter probably then well beyond her experience but which unfortunately involved a County Court Judge hearing her evidence which was, she admits, less than adequate in the care proceedings of the child. She was disciplined, sacked by her employer, NCH, but went on to do other work in social care not requiring her registration as a qualified social worker. She admitted her failings (although in fact they were minor compared to others implicated) and decided a few years later to seek registration. Events had hitherto taken place before standards of practice were established in law and before registration was required.

Interestingly though, Christine throughout these events had studied for and sought a post qualification social work award which was in fact awarded by, wait for it – yes the GSCC.

So, on the one hand the GSCC give an advanced qualification in social work and then later, deny the same person Registration! Mmmmmmm.

OK, Wilt needs to lie down in a dark room at this point, reflect, muse and try to understand. Regrettably the contradictions cause him to have a severe desire to just go to the pub – he resisted after realising, this is the GSCC, what firkin else would one expect!

What planet do these fools at the GSCC live on? It aint for certain, mother earth.

I mean I know Wilt is a bit rude about the GSCC but really one could not make up this tale of sheer horror – it sounds like a fairy tale, but it aint! It is simple incompetence and a drive on the part of the GSCC in a futile attempt to earn their spurs as a regulator. They could not regulate the attachment of a paperclip to a few pages, let alone the complex nature of social care practice.

Here are some quotes from the Care Standards Tribunal findings:

“She [Christine Jones] clearly understands what she should have done and we do not consider that she lacks insight into the implications of what she did.  There is evidence that both the project manager [NCH] and her current line manager thought highly of her professional abilities and, of course, she has received her post-qualification award despite the Respondent [The GSCC] knowing of her misconduct.”

So the GSCC knowingly awarded her a PQ award in full knowledge of her admission of guilt. Perhaps the GSCC were having a nice feeling, cuddly and lets be nice day. Mmmmmmm. Those days, if they exist are few and far between.

“The imposition of disproportionate sanctions would weaken the profession by affecting morale and recruitment.  It must also be remembered that it may not only be the individual social worker who suffers a loss if she or he is not allowed to practise.  If the person concerned has talents, those are lost to the profession and to those children or vulnerable adults who might have benefited from them.”

Thank Gawd for common sense –the CST have it but the GSCC is somewhat lacking on that account. What must these people at the GSCC think when they read these findings? Indeed do they read them, does it perculate down to those on the Registration Team or Conduct Team and if so what exactly prevents them time and again from learning lessons?

Or is it they simply do not give a shit and think the CST is misplaced in their findings? Well, Wilt knows the GSCC are not fans of the CST and find their interventions unhelpful, heard directly (with a witness) from the mouth of a senior executive (sic) at the organisation. Wilt’s assessment, they do not give a shit, so long as they get paid at the end of the month. Oh and they do get bonuses? Yes Bonuses! For what exactly?

Answers please on a note to Wilt.

So what else did the CST say:

“Had the Appellant [Christine Jones] already been registered, we consider that removal from the register would have been an excessive sanction.  As she was not registered, it is unnecessary for us to express a view as to what other sanction might have been appropriate.”

The critical observation is however:

Refusal to register her [Christine Jones] would be draconian.

And so, Christine Jones is Registered, and Wilt is pleased. Good on yer Christine, good fortune and we hope you prosper and serve as a valued professional.

The full report of the CST hearing can be downloaded here, courtesy of the CST. CJ v GSCC Decision.doc FTT

Wilt (grrrrr)

The Independent Safegaurding (ISA) authority has been established and will operate from Darlington. Yet another quango that it is reported will be staffed by 250. Well, at least it is not in London. The ISA has been established as a result of the Bichard Inquiry (2004) which looked into the circumstances concerning Ian Huntly employed as a school caretaker in Soham and where he murdered Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002.

They have taken over the running of the List 99 (education) which lists teachers barred from practice, the PoVA and PoCA list which lists those unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults and children respectively. Those three lists become two lists concerning children and adults and will be managed by one service. That is a good move.

They have an advice line service – see their website. They become live in October 2009 and they will begin to register everyone concerned in work or voluntary work plus their dogs and cats) with children or vulnerable adults. Registrants have to pay for their registration. I bet teachers and others employed in the public sector will have their fees for registration paid! Unlike Wilt who will have to pay his own fee.

There is some controversy around this agency and whether it is going to be effective, indeed cost effective especially if local authorities and other public bodies pay for their staff to be registered.  Voluntary agencies such as the NSPCC (who are very wealthy) will no doubt increase their vommit inducing TV advertising Full Stop! to cover the additional cost, but smaller voluntary groups might well suffer hugely – individual volunteers are exempt (in terms of cost) as in the case of the CRB, but small and large voluntary agencies alike who employ staff are not exempt. There is also a query whether, for example in the case of RELATE, who fee pay their councellors for work done (hence neither volunteer or employee but effectively self employed) will need to foot the bill. Wilt suspects those ’self employed’ will be required to pay their own one off registration fee, cos RELATE cannot afford it.

So social care workers will in many cases not only have to register with the GSCC (£30+ every three years) and also certainly have a CRB check (£30+ per check) and register with the ISA (£60+ one off payment, as yet!) – at this rate Wilt will have to take out a new mortgage. I would not mind so much but I am not conviced that the ISA (like the GSCC) will have any impact, or little impact. Let us not forget there was already police intelligence on Ian Huntley in Soham but the police failed to disclose the details to the school, citing Data Protection legislation – utter dorks! As yet the GSCC are to discipline a registrant who has not already been disciplined/sacked by an employer or convicted of an offence, and even then (as in Lisa Arthurworrey) they sometimes make a ball-up. The nearest the GSCC got to a success was in preventing the registration of a student social worker on the grounds that he had failed to disclose his HIV status – they were fined for that by the Employment Tribunal. Oh, and several other landmark findings by the Care Standards Tribunal, showing them (the GSCC) as total fools.

On the issue of cost, it is Wilt’s opinion that each individualshould have their registration costs met out of their own pocket – otherwise it is another stealth tax on the unsuspecting tax/community charge (poll tax) payer. Well, I suppose either way it is a stealth tax but at least I do not have to pay for others to be registered on top of my own costs. Wilt is going to have a word (or several) in the shell like ear of his mate the local Cllr XXXX XXXXX to ensure that in my local authority area that its staff pay for all three registrations (CRB/ISA/GSCC) out of their pocket, and not mine. At least that will be a start and my Council Tax bill might be reduced by a few £pounds.

The issue of effectiveness of yet another costly quango remains an open question – presently Wilt is dubious – actually more than dubious but in the interests of safegaurding (a matter close to his heart) he will await and see how matters progress.

Wilt

The commission for social care inspection (CSCI) is the daughter of the earlier national care standards commission (NCSC) which was launched in April 2002 – it was a bit of a runt of an agency which grew out of the Care Standards Act 2000.

That Act was brought about by a number of factors and events, one of which was the North Wales child abuse revelations where numerous children were systematically sexually, emotionally and physically abused.  A rather revealing report “Lost in Care” (the Waterhouse Report) describes the utter failure of all sector providers (public/private/voluntary) for looked after children and both within residential care and foster care. One of the most concerning was the utter failure of managers and elected members to take responsibility (or sometimes colluded in their demise) for children in care, resulting in the concept that these are ‘our children.’ The full report can be read here:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_4097884

Hitherto local authorities ran inspection units, effectively inspecting themselves – and we know what that means!

So the 2000 Care Standards Act and the birth of the NCSC (later CSCI – Commission for Social Care Inspection), the General Social Care Council (GSCC) and others such as SCIE (Social Care Institute for Excellence).

In summary the NCSC/CSCI no longer exist but SCIE, the GSCC do and the NCSC/CSCI functions (child care) have been assumed by Ofsted as of April 2008. Their respective websites are listed below:

http://www.scie.org.uk/

http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/

These are all the English based organisations – each of the three other countries have similar but differently titled and seperate organisations responsible to the pwn Assemblies/Parliament. Is that a good thing? Time will tell.

The Waterhouse Report – Lost in Care should be essential reading for every child & family social worker. It contains essential reading that will significantly influence practice. Remember, what was discovered in Wales could and was discovered in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Wilt