CSA Staff leaving in droves
Alan Bradshaw
Just heard a interview with the union for CSA staff and they say that
the staff at the CSA are leaving in droves he quoted 1000 in 5 months
and he also said that if it continues the whole CSA will collapse!
The reason being that the pay is crap and Job stress (punters giving
them abuse)
Keep up the pressure!!!!
Alan
C.W.
Excuse me for being sceptical but..........I'm sceptical.
--
Conrad
C.W.
Mind you, having read the following article, I'm now less
sceptical :-)
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/headlines/980810/news/902749180-4.html
Though I think it's wishing for too much to think the CSA
will collapse. They'll probably just think of more ways to
automate the whole process, so less staff are needed.
It still tickles me when I remember the time I was
complaining to a CSA chap about a wrongly imposed DEO, when
he started bemoaning his own fate and disclosed that he
himself was subject to a DEO from his own employers - the
CSA.
--
cheers, Conrad
Ann Marie / Stephen
Yes they are leaving in quite large numbers - a new setup nearby is using
the similar sort of computer system (so specifically wants CSA staff!) and
is offering a higher rate of pay........
Cheers
Ann Marie
C.W. <c.w...@ftel.co.uk> wrote in article
<35CEC24C...@ftel.co.uk>...
John Ward
[snip]
> > Alan Bradshaw wrote:
[snip]
> > > Just heard a interview with the union for CSA staff and they say that
> > > the staff at the CSA are leaving in droves he quoted 1000 in 5 months
> > > and he also said that if it continues the whole CSA will collapse!
> > > The reason being that the pay is crap and Job stress (punters giving
> > > them abuse)
> Mind you, having read the following article, I'm now less
> sceptical :-)
> http://www.yahoo.co.uk/headlines/980810/news/902749180-4.html
FIRST: IS IT TRUE?
The CSA certainly has a high turnover, but their quoted rate is about half of
the union's figure. I can't tell who is right.
There are various reasons for the CSA's turnover, for example:
1: The stress of the job is acknowledged in the latest Annual Report [1] page
31. (It talks about sick leave).
2: Although there are many young people in the CSA, I gather that some staff
came from the LRU and were already long-serving DSS-staff, so are retiring
naturally.
The PCS [2] has had various disputes with the CSA, for example concerns over
job-cuts as efficiency measures take hold over the next few years, and so is
motivated to exaggerate the problems to reinforce their claims.
But of course both may be right - the annual turnover may be 15% (about 1200),
while there may have been a peak of about 1000 over 5 months.
SECOND: SO WHAT?
What will be the impact on "clients" of the CSA if it loses too many staff:
- short term?
- long term?
Are you happy with this impact?
ANNUAL REPORT:
I've referred to the Annual Report [1]. It is worth reading.
(Ignore the "Administration Accounts" and the "Client Fund Account" stuff which
is probably only of interest to people like me).
Think of it as "Report of Faith Boardman's 1st year". Do you think she is
motivated to:
(i) hide
(ii) reveal
pre-existing problems with the CSA? It is certainly different from normal
Annual Report & Accounts, which want to emphasise shareholder-value, etc.
(You should be able to get hold of a copy at any major library. Librarians have
a genetic-defect which probably excludes them from any well-paid job - they are
born helpful. Take advantage of them, like I do).
----------
[1] Child Support Agency
Annual Report & Accounts 1997/98
ISBN 0-10-552046-2
----------
[2] Public and Commercial Services Union, PCS:
http://www.ptc.org.uk/
Various press releases about their CSA disputes:
http://www.ptc.org.uk/pcs/press/pcsnws8.htm
http://www.ptc.org.uk/pcs/press/pcsnws12.htm
http://www.ptc.org.uk/pcs/press/pcsnws23.htm
----------
John Ward
Mirage
Alan Bradshaw wrote in message <35CE884D...@virgin.net>...
>Hi,
>
>Just heard a interview with the union for CSA staff and they say that
>the staff at the CSA are leaving in droves he quoted 1000 in 5 months
>and he also said that if it continues the whole CSA will collapse!
>The reason being that the pay is crap and Job stress (punters giving
>them abuse)
>
>
>Alan
>
>
How can we be giving them that much stress ??? They are so bloody hard to
get hold of on their telephone number, ive rang loads of times and the best
time I have of getting through so far is 3hrs45mins, is this a record or
what ?????????????????/
Mirage
Mirage
Pete Dean
writes
>Alan Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just heard a interview with the union for CSA staff and they say that
>> the staff at the CSA are leaving in droves he quoted 1000 in 5 months
>> and he also said that if it continues the whole CSA will collapse!
>> The reason being that the pay is crap and Job stress (punters giving
>> them abuse)
>> Keep up the pressure!!!!
>>
>> Alan
>
>
>
peeps are leaving in droves, and seem to be gravitating to the benefit
fraud side of the civil service...
pete
--
Pete Dean *****remove no spam to reply****
CSA REFORM....
If we do not speak out now,
we may be silenced in the future....
Pete Dean
<john...@iclweb.com> writes
>C.W. <c.w...@ftel.co.uk> wrote in article <35CEF1A8...@ftel.co.uk>...
>[snip]
>> > Alan Bradshaw wrote:
>[snip]
>> > > the staff at the CSA are leaving in droves he quoted 1000 in 5 months
>> > > and he also said that if it continues the whole CSA will collapse!
>> > > The reason being that the pay is crap and Job stress (punters giving
>> > > them abuse)
>> Mind you, having read the following article, I'm now less
>> sceptical :-)
>> http://www.yahoo.co.uk/headlines/980810/news/902749180-4.html
>[snip]
>
>FIRST: IS IT TRUE?
>
>The CSA certainly has a high turnover, but their quoted rate is about half of
>the union's figure. I can't tell who is right.
with a view to review, and renewals...
what the csa figures don't give is the uptake on repeat contracts etc...
>
>There are various reasons for the CSA's turnover, for example:
>1: The stress of the job is acknowledged in the latest Annual Report [1] page
>31. (It talks about sick leave).
>2: Although there are many young people in the CSA, I gather that some staff
>came from the LRU and were already long-serving DSS-staff, so are retiring
>naturally.
"centralized"....
>
>The PCS [2] has had various disputes with the CSA, for example concerns over
>job-cuts as efficiency measures take hold over the next few years, and so is
>motivated to exaggerate the problems to reinforce their claims.
>
>But of course both may be right - the annual turnover may be 15% (about 1200),
>while there may have been a peak of about 1000 over 5 months.
themselves, and are now trying to self destruct - thre civil service has
never liked losing....
>
>SECOND: SO WHAT?
>
>What will be the impact on "clients" of the CSA if it loses too many staff:
>- short term?
>- long term?
catastrophic, and makes a mockery of the govmt promises in the gree
paper - a lack of staff will make the individual approach impossible....
>
>Are you happy with this impact?
>
>ANNUAL REPORT:
Pete
--
Mike Farr
Mirage wrote in message <6qnqqr$bf9$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>
>How can we be giving them that much stress ??? They are so bloody hard to
>get hold of on their telephone number, ive rang loads of times and the best
>time I have of getting through so far is 3hrs45mins, is this a record or
>what ?????????????????/
>
>
133XXX etc. Don't use the 000 number given, be inventive, substitute the
last 000 for any other 3 numbers, and get straight through. Get their name,
and post it here - lets get that directory of the scum together.
My motives? They're waging a vendetta against me now, after their public
and humiliating bruising at Commissioner in April.
They don't learn, do they?
Mike Farr
Charles Atkinson
<mike...@btinternet.com> writes
>PLEEEEEEESE use my new numbers for getting through - 0345 131XXX, 132XXX,
>133XXX etc. Don't use the 000 number given, be inventive, substitute the
>last 000 for any other 3 numbers, and get straight through. Get their name,
>and post it here - lets get that directory of the scum together.
>
>My motives? They're waging a vendetta against me now, after their public
>and humiliating bruising at Commissioner in April.
Mike,
What sort of vendetta?
--
Charles Atkinson cha...@catkins.demon.co.uk +44 (0)1453 834134
Mike Farr
Charles Atkinson wrote in message ...
>In article <6r6s7n$91o$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, Mike Farr
><mike...@btinternet.com> writes
>>PLEEEEEEESE use my new numbers for getting through - 0345 131XXX, 132XXX,
>>133XXX etc. Don't use the 000 number given, be inventive, substitute the
>>last 000 for any other 3 numbers, and get straight through. Get their
name,
>>and post it here - lets get that directory of the scum together.
>>
>>My motives? They're waging a vendetta against me now, after their public
>>and humiliating bruising at Commissioner in April.
>
>Mike,
>
>What sort of vendetta?
They've closed my case, from 1994 up until July 1997, the date to which I
have now been fairly and squarely found to be the Parent With Care. (no
apologies, no compensation, and no maintenance - and it took them over 3
months to comply with the Commissioner's instructions to wipe out my
alledged 'debt' to them!).
Now, they are hot on my heels again, with a fresh MEF, dating from July
1997, and are harrassing me weekly. I have just been threatened with an
Interim Maintenance Assessment. Just when I thought it was safe for me to
go out looking for a job, after they managed to loose me my previous one in
1996. Will I go ahead to find a job? No way, as they'll illegally slap a
DeO on me.
What vindictive b@$t@rds! They never seem to learn, do they?
Mike Farr
>
Pete Dean
<mike...@btinternet.com> writes
e me
pete
--
Charles Atkinson
>have now been fairly and squarely found to be the Parent With Care. (no
>apologies, no compensation, and no maintenance - and it took them over 3
>months to comply with the Commissioner's instructions to wipe out my
>alledged 'debt' to them!).
>Now, they are hot on my heels again, with a fresh MEF, dating from July
>1997, and are harrassing me weekly. I have just been threatened with an
>Interim Maintenance Assessment. Just when I thought it was safe for me to
>go out looking for a job, after they managed to loose me my previous one in
>1996. Will I go ahead to find a job? No way, as they'll illegally slap a
>DeO on me.
Understandable, if tragic. Are you the AP from July 97 onward?