Impending staff cuts at Dulwich Picture Gallery

[tiddles]

You would think that as a very wealthy charity, the dulwich estate would want to do something. after all, the DPG is smack bang in the middle of the 'estate'. Of historical value etc etc

Not holding my breath??...

[hpsaucey]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Typical pointless petition. There's no evidence

> that DPG are doing this for fun - what does

> everybody suggest they do instead? If they don't

> have the dough they can hardly keep everyone, on

> exactly the same terms, and slowly go broke.

Hardly pointless. No one has said they're doing it for fun. There is usually more than one way to try and make savings ....

[Robert Poste's Child]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So wouldn't a combination of less onerous new

> t&cs, more input from sponsors, reductions in

> senior salaries and sale of one or two works be a

> better solution?

In my view cutting heads and squeezing front-line staff is a fairly desperate measure, so I do wonder if it's the right solution here. I get that profit = income less costs and tax, so reducing costs increases your margin, but it's hardly a commercial business, is it? And it has tax breaks due to its charitable status, not to mention the contributions of Friends and corporate sponsorship of exhibitions. If the front-line staff are mainly part-timers or casual perhaps they could achieve much the same thing softly over five to ten years through natural attrition.

If I worked there I'd be suggesting ramping up the events side plus increased PR to build visitor numbers. Did you know they did wedding ceremonies? I didn't and I've lived around the corner for years.

[EKSM]

We have now issued a statement providing further information on the visitor services review and consultation. Please visit: bit.ly/1uEyi9b

Ellie Manwell

Head of Communications, Dulwich Picture Gallery

[nxjen]

Thanks for posting this which appears reasonable. The OP mentioned redundancies and no mention of redundancies is made in your statement. Would it be possible to clarify what the situation is regarding possible redundancies?

[DaveR]

"Hardly pointless. No one has said they're doing it for fun. There is usually more than one way to try and make savings"

The petition is completely pointless because it just says "NO!". That may be a rational response to the question "do you want to experiment on animals" but it hardly works for "how do we balance our books?".

[StraferJack]

.

[marlwood25]

I AM a Friend of the DPG. I have just paid my annual sub. I also claim the right to criticise the Gallery Management over this scandalous proposal to axe 19 posts and replace them with casual staff. In other words, the Gallery still needs the numbers but won't pay a decent wage or abide by employment law. It would be interesting to see the salaries paid to DPG management.

But then it is all symptomatic of the age we live in where workers' rights are ignored (and don't charge me with indulging in socialist rhetoric - this is all about common sense and decency).

JT

[StraferJack]

marlwood - did the post from the gallery earlier today not help at all?

[marlwood25]

It fudges the issue. Does the DPG need these 19 posts or not? What is the point of making 19 staffers redundant and then replacing them with casuals with no employment rights?

The point is of course that the DPG wants labour on the cheap, just like the National Gallery.

[StraferJack]

is it 100% clear that 19 staff are being made redundant?

"All employees taken on under the new contracts will receive the London Living Wage and be guaranteed regular salaries based on a set number of employment hours each year, with full Gallery benefits."

doesn't sound like no employment rights? I might be wrong tho.. I just don't see it in B&W yet

and I'm inherently suspicious of getting my facts from petition sites

[DaveR]

"....won't pay a decent wage or abide by employment law"

Any evidence to support either of those? Almost certainly defamatory.....

[Loz]

With Friends like marlwood...

[JGogarty]

My wife used to work at the gallery some years ago and had a really good relationship with the Gallery Assistant team there. She is still in touch with many of them, and they are fighting for their livelihoods. Many of these people are artists and historians and are extremely knowledgeable, not just about the gallery collection but art in general. There are 19 people at risk of losing their jobs - there is no doubt about that. The terms and conditions being proposed are very unfavourable for the staff affected. Why on earth would they oppose contracts that improve their situations? It doesn't make any sense. I await with bated breath the gallery's impending PR campaign whitewashing away the nasty truth. While some might doubt the validity of a campaign petition, I am as inclined to doubt official statements. The people who write them are paid to make the gallery look benevolent. I for one shall be signing their petition to stop the redundancies.

[hpsaucey]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Hardly pointless. No one has said they're doing

> it for fun. There is usually more than one way to

> try and make savings"

>

> The petition is completely pointless because it

> just says "NO!". That may be a rational response

> to the question "do you want to experiment on

> animals" but it hardly works for "how do we

> balance our books?".

Written from the viewpoint of affected staff - yes. They don't just say 'no': they are within their rights to fight these changes and to make others aware of the situation which is what the petition does. The proposals as they are presented in the petition point to huge potential changes in their terms and conditions and to their pay. They are raising awareness of the issue and it has produced discussion here and presumably elsewhere...

Pointless huh?

[Tinky Winky]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> is it 100% clear that 19 staff are being made

> redundant?

>.....

> and I'm inherently suspicious of getting my facts

> from petition sites

I'm not sure that 19 staff are being made redundant. The various wordings that i have seen are (to me) a bit ambiguous. However the petition has been set up by the DPG GAs - so isn't that valid? I don't see the Gallery spokespeople addressing that particular issue.....

[Robert Poste's Child]

The DPG's statement says that they're in consultation with employees, so presumably they haven't yet made a formal decision on how many posts will go and which people will be affected (in theory, at least, though no doubt they have a number in mind as a result of the review). Not sure the Gallery could reasonably give much more information publicly at the moment given where they seem to be in the process, though you can understand the feelings of the employees involved and why they'd choose to leak information about their case. It's never an easy thing to go through.

[DaveR]

"Written from the viewpoint of affected staff - yes. They don't just say 'no': they are within their rights to fight these changes and to make others aware of the situation which is what the petition does. The proposals as they are presented in the petition point to huge potential changes in their terms and conditions and to their pay. They are raising awareness of the issue and it has produced discussion here and presumably elsewhere..."

The problem with this analysis is that it's essentially meaningless. Of course the staff have an interest in changes to their pay and conditions. But a petition, by definition, is inviting those who have no direct interest to adopt a specific stance. In this case, there is no information to hang that stance on reliably - suggestions that DPG may not be acting lawfully, or would be paying below minimum wage have been swiftly dealt with - so the outcome is that this is petition premised on the fact that the management have got it wrong, without any evidence. It's based on a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of redundancies, despite the fact that (unhappily for those involved) people losing their jobs is an unavoidable fact of life - organisations need to balance the books, and better to lose some jobs than ultimately all of them. If you would sign this petition, you would sign any petition that said "people might lose their jobs - it's bad!"

So yes, pointless. And stupid.

[EKSM]

Thank you for your responses.

We have identified a need for redundancies as part of the proposed reorganisation. The consultation process with our visitor services team began last week. No final decisions have been taken yet. The purpose of consultation is to seek the views of those affected.

With regards to causal staff this is not about outsourcing or casualising our workforce. The proposals will eliminate current discrepancies between contracts across the team, including ?zero hour? contracts, and by employing more staff on regular contracts it will reduce the need for casual staff.

We appreciate that there is public concern and endeavour to remain as transparent as is appropriate throughout the process.

Ellie Manwell

Head of Communications

[Blah Blah]

And to be fair the galleries accounts are posted at companies house and it can be seen from those that something has to change. It's also worth taking a look at the annual review as well for a more detailed breakedown of employment costs including pension schemes.

[Hollymendel]

I have just signed the petition.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-staff-cuts-at-the-dulwich-picture-gallery

[Robert Poste's Child]

Really? Wasn't it you who posted more than one other new thread on the same topic recently? I assumed you were directly involved.

[SaveJobsAtDPG]

Thank you for your concerns and questions regarding the proposed restructuring of the front-of-house team at Dulwich Picture Gallery. Given the stage we have reached in the consultation process, the gallery is currently preventing us from disclosing any more information than we already have. However, we will try to clarify our stance on the matter and the reasons why we have decided to bring this issue to the knowledge of the public.

There are currently 36 members of the visitor services team; senior management proposes to make up to 19 of these members of staff redundant. Those retaining their positions will be asked to sign wholly new contracts (annualised hours contracts), facing significant and adverse changes to their current terms and conditions.

This is an extract concerning annual hours contracts from the ACAS website :

?Under most annual hours systems, overtime is removed and consolidated into basic pay. Employees may be required to work extra hours at short notice, which may disrupt planned leisure time, and be expected to work longer hours seasonally, including through the summer.?

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4288

We are not permitted to divulge the exact details of the particular annualised hour contracts proposed by Dulwich Picture Gallery, and therefore cannot make public exactly how detrimental these contracts will be to us and the visitors. We would invite DPG to make public the exact proposals if they feel they can stand over the new contracts as ?fair and equitable.?

The annualised hours contracts have been proposed by senior management without any consideration being given to the personal situation of current staff (ie. older staff who cannot work for long hours, staff with childcare and domestic responsibilities, those in education etc). The new contracts will result in a deleterious impact on staff's everyday life and will bring about a significant power imbalance in favour of the employer.

The proposed changes will likewise be detrimental to the visitors' experience and the general running of the front-of-house. With the proposed reduction in staff numbers, the day-to-day running of the gallery will become problematic and will result in poor visitor service. It will also be directly detrimental to other departments of the gallery (such as Education) as gallery assistants provide an essential link with their target audience.

We can say with confidence that the new terms and conditions will result in a high turnover of staff. The nature of the proposed contracts is not suitable for a stable life-style. With high turnover of staff, the knowledge which comes with years of experience in a gallery environment will be lost. Unfortunately, this will, again, directly affect the visitor's experience.

We welcome equitable contracts and would like zero-hour employees to be offered full or part-time contracts wherever desired. However, the current proposal would strip overtime rates from those presently entitled to them and would, as a result, reduce their overall annual earnings. With the introduction of an apprenticeship scheme, two well-trained, knowledgeable and experienced staff would lose their livelihoods. Surely, if there was such a demand for new recruits in the cultural sector, 19 people would not be at risk of losing their jobs.

We also feel this entire situation could have been avoided if management simply listened to their Gallery Assistant team over a year ago and attempted to fairly resolve their problems with unequal pay and conditions in the workplace. Instead of resolving two-tiered pay scale issues, which resulted in event staffing difficulties, management ignored our concerns when we first raised the issue. Now they propose a new three-tier system of annualised hours staff, apprentices and casual staff with different pay and conditions. This does not address existing discrepancies between contracts in a fair and equitable manner.

We would not be opposing the proposal, if it represented a genuine rise in employment conditions. Bearing in mind that the majority of us are already on zero-hour contracts, with minimal benefits and employment rights, our objections should give some indication of how alarming the proposed terms and conditions are. Having learnt the full implications of this proposal, we are now opposing not only the redundancies, but the proposal in its entirety: We will not work at the gallery under the proposed terms.

We care passionately about the gallery and our visitors and encourage you to keep visiting. Our team is still here for now, protecting the paintings and ready to engage with you to make your visit as pleasant and interesting as possible. We are a team with a wealth of knowledge and experience, each one of us bringing something unique to the table. Come visit the gallery and have a chat with us. We look forward to welcoming you there. Show your support for us by signing the online petition https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-staff-cuts-at-the-dulwich-picture-gallery or the hard copy held at Shepherd?s and Gail?s in Dulwich Village. Come to the protest organised by our friends and supporters at 1pm on February 7th and make some noise at the gallery gates.

[Blah Blah]

How much money would the restructuring save the gallery? The 2013 accounts filed at companies house show a loss of around ?3k following five years of no profit. Restructuring to turn loss into profit is one thing. Restructuring to maximise profit is another. I for one would be interested in the detail of this, as with most things the truth often lies in between.

[MrBen]

Sorry....but all this talk of "employment conditions" wears a bit thin with me. This is milling about looking an talking about paintings isn't it? And not 15 hours down a coal mine?