THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE....

Below are comments posted by the people of Liverpool on the care workers dispute...

Stanford88 said...
Congratulations on attracting so many comments Tony.

It's good to be able to tell others of the way council is treating us.

I will certainly post news and comments to it !

Guess what? – more bad news !

I bumped in to one of the ex office staff where I work today. She said our company had lost a few of the areas that we are working in because of the new contract and this would affect my blocks.

It appears that I have to go and work for another new care agency if I want to stay with my service users.

What are the council trying to do to me?

What are the council trying to do to the people I look after?

Are they deliberately trying to upset us?

Are they deliberately picking on us?

First of all, a 30% pay cut, secondly, IF I manager to stay a carer, I will have to transfer to another care agency because of toopee to stay with my service users?

I don’t want to change agency.

I am happy with my wages, I am happy with service users, I am happy with the agency I work for.

Are all these changes for the good?

If so perhaps Curly, Larry and Mo (AKA Antrobus, Hunter and Brazil) be able to tell me how?

I have served this city as a loyal carer for a number of years (on less money than them).

I think I am entitled to some explanation.

PS I am a council tax payer - so I am demanding an answer...

Tepec said...

I am a social care manager.

I just can't believe where they are coming from on this one.

How can they disrupt so many vulnerable people?

Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:45:00 AM

TAX PAYER said...

Yes and I am DEMANDING to know what the hell they are up to.

I am also a tax payer. I object to my hard earning money being used to feather the nests of Social Services and P.C.T. managers also the allowances for so called 'Coucillors'.

YOU need to take some Counsel yourselves.

These are very vulnerable Liverpool Citizens and care staff you are putting at risk.

People you are not even fit to wipe there boots.

GIVE US THE ANSWERS YOU FACELESS PEOPLE instead of pocketing MY MONEY yourselves.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:15:00 PM

Carol said...

So very very sad. Oh! to be elderly. Nobody cares.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:24:00 PM

Pete said...

If you want to save money to have more to spend on yourself and Jollies to Cannes and elsewhere who do you pick on?....... The elderly and children they can't hit back.Thats about the level we have sunk to in Liverpool.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:08:00 PM

Anonymous said...

"Never before have so many been taken for so much and left with so little."

Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:56:00 PM

IT'S CRIMINAL: "'THE COUNCIL ARE OVERSPENT AND NEED TO FIND MORE MONEY TO FUND CAPITAL OF CULTURE..."

Stanford88 has left a new comment on your post "THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE...":

Hi Tony.

Thanks for your support.

I attended a meeting in the North of the city last week organised by the Liverpool Care Slaves United.

Over 100 people showed up and we met a local labour councillor Joe Hanson.

I spoke to carers from all different parts of the city who are all in the same position - facing about 30% PAY CUT !

The Labour Party can't believe that the council are trying to force such cuts through on the private sector workers and they are vowing to help us in our struggle for equal rights of pay.

If you dont mind I would like to take this opportunity to tell other care workers that are concerned about what the council are doing to contact Joe Hanson.

His email address is :joseph.hanson@liverpool.gov.uk

The same answers keep coming back on this when we ask why is the council changing the contract?

Answers.....1) The council are overspent and need to find more money to fund the Capital of Culture stuff. I would ask, why target the care services?

2) When they have come up with the idea of this new homecare contract, they have not thought through the knock on effect on the carers and workforce in the city. I would ask, who are the people making these decisions without speaking to us?

3) It is to increase efficiency and is better for the council tax payer. I would ask, why target just the private sector service? Home Help staff are being paid for their spare capacity and also get paid for their traveling time. District nurses and health authority staff get paid for shifts of work, that includes traveling time.

WHY ARE WE ANY DIFFERENT?

IT IS NOT EQUAL IT IS NOT FAIR

Tony, I say : CUT THE CULTURE BUDGET, NOT THE CARE BUDGET - and let us continue to do our job caring for the elderly of this city and giving them the time and quality of life they deserve.

Posted by Stanford88 to City of the Dead* at Monday, May 21, 2007 11:44:00 AM

SURPRISE, SURPRISE! City council rapped for hushing things up!

For immediate release

Press release

Date: 11 May 2007

Liverpool City Council criticised for Freedom of Information handling

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has criticised Liverpool City Council over its handling of requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a letter to Chief Executive, Colin Hilton, the ICO cites a catalogue of failings by the council to meet the requirements of the Act and outlines what the council needs to do to improve its performance.
According to the Information Commissioner’s Office the council does not have
adequate procedures in place to deal with freedom of information requests and
failed, on a number of occasions, to provide the ICO with the information required to investigate a complaint under the Act.
A practice recommendation issued by the ICO highlights the council’s ‘symptomatic poor practice in handling freedom of information requests’ and criticises the council’s failure to provide adequate advice and assistance to individuals requesting information under the Act.
The ICO will continue to monitor the council’s information request handling
procedures and performance and will assess its progress against the ICO’s
recommendations in 6 months.
Last year the ICO prosecuted Liverpool City Council for breaching the Data
Protection Act after it failed to provide an individual with their health records held by the Council, despite several warning from the ICO.

ENDS
If you need more information, please contact the Information Commissioner’s press office on 020 7025 7580 or visit the website at: www.ico.gov.uk
Notes to Editors
1. The Information Commissioner promotes public access to official information and protects personal information. The ICO is an independent body with specific responsibilities set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003.
2. For more information about the Information Commissioner’s Office subscribe to our enewsletter at www.ico.gov.uk
3. For a copy of the Practice Recommendation issued to Liverpool City Council please go to http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/notices/liverpool_city
_council_practice_recommendation.pdf

ANDERSON DEMANDS STANDARDS BOARD PROBE INTO CLUCAS AND THE IRISH CENTRE

LABOUR Leader Joe Anderson has called for a full-scale investigation into Flo Clucas trying to waltz off with the former Irish Centre on Mount Pleasant. (see Liverpool subCulture, ed)

Anderson has written to the Standards Board protesting that Clucas's actions breach the national Code of Conduct for councillors.

The Standards Board can fine or suspend Clucas from office if they find her guilty (some chance of that, ed)

Anderson tells how Clucas 'intervened strongly' at a meeting with planning officials on 19 December to promote Dance Liverpool's crackpot scheme to takeover the Centre, which is a Grade 2* listed building.

He says Clucas also offered/promoted:

• Objective 1 European funding for the Centre


• city council support for the scheme and/or


• to slap a CPO on the Centre.

Anderson says Clucas failed to declare an interest - she is a Director of Dance Liverpool, according to Companies House records.

The Labour Leader poses six separate questions about Clucas's conduct, including:

• Has Cllr Flo Clucas used her position as an Executive Member to promote a scheme in respect of which she has interest? (of course, ed)


• Was the City Council’s recommendation to reject the (owner's) Planning Application in 2006 as a result of pressure to support the “Dance Liverpool” proposal from Cllr Flo Clucas? (very probably, ed)


• Was there any reasonable evidence to suggest that the alternative “Dance Liverpool” proposal had any realistic prospect of delivery (the report... clearly identifies a lack of funding...for the scheme) (none at all, ed)

Anderson also asks if it was appropriate for Clucas to "promise/promote that Liverpool City Council would bear the costs of any CPO enquiry (as you will be aware developers normally bear such costs)?" (highly irregular, ed)

and

"Promising/promoting that acquisition costs would be funded by ERDS (Objective 1 European Funding) before any application or approval for such funding has been obtained?"(well, she is Chair of the Committee which doles out the Euro dosh, so presumably she should know whether she was going to give herself the money? ed)

Anderson adds: "You will note from the handwritten notes from a meeting, that Cllr Flo Clucas had explored ways in which pressure could be put on the existing owner (which would have the result of encouraging him to surrender the leasehold interest) and in particular, investigating the condition of the fire safety system and demanding that Liverpool City Council serve a schedule of dilapidations on the leasehold owner."

(This one will run and run, ed)

MOURNING FOR MARBROW? - NO, CELEBRATING AND PLANNING MORE TO COME!!!!!

Dear blogosphere,

We are taking the Bank Holiday off to celebrate the well deserved demise of Inspector Clueless in the local elections and the extremely heartening results in Liverpool, dramatically bucking the national trend.

Congratulations to all concerned. Especially to those who played such a fantastic role in helping get rid of one of the most pompous, self-opinionated, puffed up (literally, ed) arrogant, stupid and naive Lib Dem tossers, it has ever been our misfortune to come across.

Revenge is sweet.

We will be back on Tuesday with some extremely interesting material about some remaining very senior Lib Dem councillors.

We are also interested in hearing more detail about the astonishing dirty tricks which went on in the local election campaign, which are already attracting the attention of the police and the Standards Board for England.

(Oh, we do love to tease, ed)

Now, pass me the champagne....