You are:

HMRC Deskside pilot

Your PCS representatives will be having their first formal consultation meeting with Fujitsu on the 8 September regarding the pilot of the new HMRC Deskside model.

We will be putting the questions/issues that have been raised by members to them (listed below) and seeking their response.

If you have any questions/issues you would like to be raised at the meeting please contact Sharon Leslie sharonl@pcs.org.uk. Following the meeting a members' briefing will be issued to update members.

Issues raised by members regarding pilot of new deskside model

Pilot
 

  1. What is the length of the pilot?
  2. What and who will be involved in the pilot?
  3. Will conducting the pilot during the traditional holiday period provide a true reflection of calls received and accurate data on which to make decisions about severe job cuts?
  4. How will the pilot’s success be evaluated i.e. what measures will be in place and who will be involved in measuring the success. For example, will the client have input?
  5. How will the pilot overcome the tight security demanded by HMRC with regards to the logistics of hardware removal, collection and swap outs?
  6. Is the client aware that the mobile engineers taking part in the pilot do not have the required security clearance?
  7. Why has Fujitsu chosen this pilot model rather than consulting with staff and the trade unions regarding alternatives?
  8. Provide justification for the five calls a day benchmark defining a remote site?
  9. What plans have been put in place during the pilot to train the mobile engineers on the work of the USTs? Additionally, who will be asked to conduct the training?
  10. How will engineers be selected to work ‘white space’, on the pilot and nationally?
  11. How many USTs will be put on “white space” during the pilot and where are they based?
  12. What will those staff selected to work on “white space” be required to do?
  13. What is the proposed costing model and what will be the savings?
  14. Why can’t the USTs undertake the role of DEO engineers, as opposed to the other way round?
  15. What is the correct role code for mobile engineers and is this supported by a job evaluation exercise?
  16. Will mobile engineers receive appropriate remuneration whilst taking part in the pilot as they are performing work appropriate to a higher role code?
  17. What is the salary average of UST engineers, compared to their DEO counterparts?
  18. The USTs only recently took on the work of the CAFCASS contract as the mobile engineers couldn't cope with the work and CAFCASS were complaining about the level of service they were receiving. Why are we now moving to a model that we know provides bad customer service?
  19. Why is this model being piloted when its previous use on other accounts has resulted in the contract being lost as a result of the poor service i.e. Lloyds TSB and HBOS?
  20. What is the proposed Service Level Agreement compliance the new model is looking to hit?
  21. If the pilot is a success, how will this impact the UST community as a whole?
  22. The pilot seems ill thought out in terms of activity and how it will be evaluated – have you costed how much the pilot will cost? If yes, how much?

General

  1. What is the predicted fix rate of mobile engineers, compared to the fix rate of UST?
  2. Changing to mobile engineering will be a change to many staff’s terms and conditions. How will any contractual changes be managed?
  3. The new model will have an impact on equality and diversity grounds. Have you completed an equality impact assessment to mitigate against any unintended discrimination? If not, when will one be done?
  4. Why can’t the USTs undertake the role of DEO engineers, as opposed to the other way round?
  5. TUPEd USTs from the civil service were actively encouraged to transfer to Fujitsu in 2006 because their skills and knowledge would ensure a smooth transition. However, within six months of transferring the requirement for these skills were severely restricted and became more hardware orientated. There is a perception amongst TUPEd staff that there is a pattern whereby staff are welcomed and encouraged to join Fujitsu to help them deliver the contract only to discover a few years later they are subsequently declared surplus.
  6. Civil service TUPE’d staff were given assurances that their jobs would be safe as it was a ten year contract (later extended). They were told that their terms and conditions would be protected by TUPE regulations and that they would not be penalised for these terms and conditions. Fujitsu were fully aware of their salaries and terms before they TUPE'd across. They were also asked to provide their preferred base locations which obviously depended on home addresses and personal situations. Now they are being told that they are too expensive to keep. Fujitsu would have known the staff cost when they took the contract on. These staff feel that they were lied to and come over to Fujitsu on commitments that Fujitsu had no intention of keeping and could now potentially be made redundant. Many have said if they had any inkling that they would be in this situation today they never would have transferred. Are you aware of the past commitments? Do you think the experiences of these staff leaves you in a good position to bid for future central government work?
  7. As part of the last round of redundancies (less than eight months ago) the staffing requirements for engineers was decided. Why are more staffing reductions required if the model was agreed only eight months ago? Many staff did not apply for voluntary redundancy last time as they felt that their jobs were relatively safe based on what they had been told by management.
  8. If DEO staff are currently only doing 1 call per day, why were they not cut with Project Cherry (last year’s redundancies program)?
  9. 9.60% of Fujitsu revenues come from government contracts. Why do staff who work on these contracts always seem to be in scope for reductions/cost savings?
  10. What will happen to engineers deemed surplus, if they cannot find alternative roles?
  11. If the pilot is a success will the USTs be redeployed as mobile engineers to mitigate against compulsory redundancies?
  12. Why can’t USTs be given the work currently done by contractors e.g. DIFFs (MOD project)? This will clearly produce cost savings.
  13. There are some areas in the country where it won’t be possible to redeploy USTs into suitable, alternative employment e.g. the NE. In the last six months there have been no Fujitsu jobs advertised in this area of the country. What are your plans for these staff if the pilot is a success?
  14. If the pilot is a success, how long will USTs be allowed to remain on “white space” whilst looking for a role?
  15. The latest Programme 40 update sent a clear message that there had to be savings and requested that staff consider applying for posts in different disciplines otherwise redundancies will be inevitable. When do you envisage that a decision will be made regarding the need for redundancies?
  16. There is a perception that management have decided that anyone not on Fujitsu terms and conditions doesn't fit in with their cost model regardless of their skills, experience or motivation to provide an excellent service. Is there any truth in the perception?
  17. Staff can’t see how this model will be more efficient. The general perception is the new model will be less efficient and the customers’ perception of the service received will greatly diminish. USTs already implement cost saving measures such as pooling calls so that a UST will action four or five calls in one visit rather than individual visits. USTs are also now performing their own breakfix repairs and in the space of five weeks one team alone have generated savings of almost £5000 to the account. Why haven’t alternatives of this type been investigated rather than the new model?
  18. The ASPIRE customer perception surveys show the high level of service and experience the USTs provide to the contract. Why are senior managers actively seeking to provide a bronze service at the same cost to the customer but for greater profit to the company? The logical outcome is that Fujitsu will lose the contract and subsequently the jobs employed within the contract.
  19. As this model will only have a detrimental effect on TUPEd ex civil servants this appears to be a direct attack on PCS members and on non Fujitsu terms and conditions in order to cut costs. How can Fujitsu justify this unfair treatment?