Struggling to strike a balance
Funding cuts mean tough decisions, but privatising services are causing concern among staff
The long and bitter battle between London’s National Gallery and union members, which came to a head over the summer, illustrates how treacherous privatisation can be for cultural institutions.
It is, however, a path that museums and galleries are increasingly taking, as part of efforts to increase efficiencies in response to sustained cuts to their public funding.
The arguments for and against privatisation are well known.
Critics believe such an approach creates a two-tiered workforce, leads to lower pay, high staff turnover, poor morale and the deterioration of specialist sector-specific knowledge.
On the other hand, advocates of privatisation believe it is an integral part of modernisation, offering museums and galleries much-needed flexibility, while making operations more efficient and streamlined and, in some cases, ensuring the future sustainability of the organisation.
Unhappy situation
“The trade unions don’t like privatisation and many people working in museums don’t like it ideologically,” a national museum director told Museums Journal.
“The problem is that the current financial pressures are driving museums to consider whether privatisation can be used to reduce costs and keep institutions going. It is a very unhappy situation.”
Throughout the summer, institutions across the UK were disrupted by industrial action relating to privatisation and pay (see boxes). It was, however, the upset at the National Gallery that grabbed the most headlines.
Repeated strikes were followed by continuous strike action, which started on 17 August – the date that Gabriele Finaldi replaced Nicholas Penny as the director of the gallery.
The strike, which was continuing as Museums Journal went to press, followed the gallery’s appointment of security firm Securitas – a move the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) said would affect 400 people working in front- of-house, ticket sales and security roles.
While the affected workers’ current terms and conditions would be protected under Transfer of Undertakings, Protection and Employment regulations, the union was
concerned that those directly employed by Securitas in the future would have different entitlements, thereby creating a two-tiered workforce.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of PCS, says: “While their terms and conditions will have limited protection, there’s nothing to stop the company bringing in any new staff on worse pay and conditions. The company will, by nature, have to make a profit on providing a service that was previously done as a public good, so it is inconceivable that this will maintain the same level of jobs and the same degree of service to the public.”
In a press statement, the National Gallery said its contract with Securitas, worth £40m over five years, was part of its commitment to modernisation and would provide a better service to its six million annual visitors. It said that no staff members would be made redundant, and those affected would continue to be paid at the London Living Wage. The gallery also highlighted that it was one of the last major national museums and galleries to appoint an external partner to manage these services.
Imperial War Museums fully contracted out its security visitor services across the UK to Shield Group by April 2014. The museum came under criticism from PCS, but there was no resulting strike action.
In February, Museums Journal reported that the Natural History Museum, Science Museum and Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) had a joint procurement agreement for security. All visitor services, information and ticketing staff at the National Portrait Gallery, located next to the National Gallery in London, are provided in-house.
The V&A’s visitor services team and the British Museum’s core visitor services staff are run in-house, although the latter does use agency support for major exhibitions.
Royal Museums Greenwich uses private contractors to provide catering and building management, and electrical engineering. Security and cleaning services are managed in-house.
The group has, however, managed to avoid extensive contracting out of jobs and services after “modernising” employees’ terms and conditions, and closing its costly civil service pension scheme to new joiners in the mid-90s, says Andy Bodle, the director of operations and HR at Royal Museums Greenwich.
“We were facing then what many [institutions] were facing now and it was a question of protecting the business, ensuring it was able to thrive, while also protecting jobs in the long run,” he says.
The changes led to Royal Museums Greenwich introducing a defined contribution pension scheme for new recruits and moving away from a Monday to Friday 9am-5pm working pattern, which required staff to be paid more at weekends.
“We couldn’t afford to open on Sunday mornings because we couldn’t afford to pay the double-time overtime wages,” says Bodle. “We realised that the terms and conditions were driving the business, rather than the other way around.”
Reducing tension
Although unions and staff initially resisted the changes, several measures were taken to prevent tensions from escalating. An employee council, comprising union and non-union members, ensured thorough consultation with the workforce.
“Basically, we had to explain the business needs to everyone involved, and communicate our vision and explain where we wanted to get to,” says Bodle.
“In my experience, I found that people can be quite tolerant when they understand what
you are trying to do.”
A management development programme was also established, after staff identified a need for further training during the consultation process.
“Training was necessary because the business structure was changing so much,” adds Bodle.
For many museums, however, making changes to pensions and terms and conditions, or contracting out services alongside other cost-saving measures, is going to present several challenges.
“It is hard to strike a balance,” says a senior museum director. “Museums can’t just refuse to find ways of making savings and therefore go bust. They have got to try and keep body and soul together. I’m sure many museums and galleries are looking at things that they once would have thought were unpalatable.”
Unions will continue to challenge the privatisation of jobs and services, pushing instead for existing and new staff to be given more flexible contracts rather than be employed by a private firm or work on zero-hours contracts.
“Museums are undoubtedly struggling because of short-sighted central government cuts that, in the case of arts and culture, amount to nothing less than philistinism, and we do sympathise with the institutions,” says PCS’s Serwotka.
“But the answer to short-termism is not more short termism.”
• Staff at the National Gallery in London went on continuous strike action on 17 August. PCS union members, who have so far taken 92 days of strike action, are protesting against the privatisation of the gallery’s visitor-facing services, including ticket sales, security and front- of-house. At the beginning of September, staff on strike handed over a 130,000-name petition against the gallery’s privatisation plans.
• Tate, in London, was also subject to a campaign by PCS members employed by the private firm Wilson James. The union claimed privatised staff are employed on zero-hours contacts and are paid £2.50 less per hour than colleagues doing the same jobs but employed directly by Tate. “PCS members employed by Wilson James receive no contractual maternity pay or proper access to pensions,” the union said.
“A meagre increase of 13p was seen as an insult by PCS members, who boycotted
a Late at Tate event as a result.” A petition calling on Tate and Wilson James to end the pay disparity had attracted 1,514 signatures as Museums Journal went to press.
“Employee welfare is important to Wilson James and our clients, and we always consult our employees regarding any concerns that are raised,” said a Wilson James spokesman. “Our staff working at Tate are paid a rate equivalent to the London Living Wage.”
• Talks are underway at Tate and the National Gallery to resolve the disputes.
• Some National Museums Scotland (NMS) staff went on strike after talks between the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union and the museum service collapsed.
The seven- day walk out at NMS’s five venues in August was part of a union campaign for the reintroduction of weekend allowances for visitor operation staff, which were scrapped for new employees in 2011.
PCS said those employed after this date received up to £3,000 less a year for working weekend shifts. An NMS spokesman said reintroducing weekend payments was “unaffordable” in a climate of public sector funding cuts.
• In Wales, the National Waterfront Museum in Swansea, Big Pit National Coal Museum in Blaenafon, National Slate Museum in Llanberis and National Wool Museum in Dre-fach Felindre were closed on 29 August.
The closures were part of a long-running dispute between PCS and Amgueddfa Cymru (National Museum Wales) over proposals to scrap premium payments for weekend working – a move that the union said would slash pay for front-of- house staff by £2,000 to £3,000 a year.
“Management has threatened to dismiss staff who refuse to sign up to the changes, then re-engage them on the nferior terms,” the union said in a statement. A spokeswoman for National Museum Wales said it had presented PCS with a new offer, which includes an additional £300 for each person affected on top of the compensatory payments already offered, worth about £3,600.
Their basic pay will also rise by 6%, rather than 4%, and all staff will receive at least the Living Wage of £7.85 an hour. “It is the best we can offer within the financial resources available to us, which have been cut by over 20% in recent years,” said the spokeswoman.
Further strike action has been suspended while negotiations continue.
Rebecca Atkinson
It is, however, a path that museums and galleries are increasingly taking, as part of efforts to increase efficiencies in response to sustained cuts to their public funding.
The arguments for and against privatisation are well known.
Critics believe such an approach creates a two-tiered workforce, leads to lower pay, high staff turnover, poor morale and the deterioration of specialist sector-specific knowledge.
On the other hand, advocates of privatisation believe it is an integral part of modernisation, offering museums and galleries much-needed flexibility, while making operations more efficient and streamlined and, in some cases, ensuring the future sustainability of the organisation.
Unhappy situation
“The trade unions don’t like privatisation and many people working in museums don’t like it ideologically,” a national museum director told Museums Journal.
“The problem is that the current financial pressures are driving museums to consider whether privatisation can be used to reduce costs and keep institutions going. It is a very unhappy situation.”
Throughout the summer, institutions across the UK were disrupted by industrial action relating to privatisation and pay (see boxes). It was, however, the upset at the National Gallery that grabbed the most headlines.
Repeated strikes were followed by continuous strike action, which started on 17 August – the date that Gabriele Finaldi replaced Nicholas Penny as the director of the gallery.
The strike, which was continuing as Museums Journal went to press, followed the gallery’s appointment of security firm Securitas – a move the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) said would affect 400 people working in front- of-house, ticket sales and security roles.
While the affected workers’ current terms and conditions would be protected under Transfer of Undertakings, Protection and Employment regulations, the union was
concerned that those directly employed by Securitas in the future would have different entitlements, thereby creating a two-tiered workforce.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of PCS, says: “While their terms and conditions will have limited protection, there’s nothing to stop the company bringing in any new staff on worse pay and conditions. The company will, by nature, have to make a profit on providing a service that was previously done as a public good, so it is inconceivable that this will maintain the same level of jobs and the same degree of service to the public.”
In a press statement, the National Gallery said its contract with Securitas, worth £40m over five years, was part of its commitment to modernisation and would provide a better service to its six million annual visitors. It said that no staff members would be made redundant, and those affected would continue to be paid at the London Living Wage. The gallery also highlighted that it was one of the last major national museums and galleries to appoint an external partner to manage these services.
Imperial War Museums fully contracted out its security visitor services across the UK to Shield Group by April 2014. The museum came under criticism from PCS, but there was no resulting strike action.
In February, Museums Journal reported that the Natural History Museum, Science Museum and Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) had a joint procurement agreement for security. All visitor services, information and ticketing staff at the National Portrait Gallery, located next to the National Gallery in London, are provided in-house.
The V&A’s visitor services team and the British Museum’s core visitor services staff are run in-house, although the latter does use agency support for major exhibitions.
Royal Museums Greenwich uses private contractors to provide catering and building management, and electrical engineering. Security and cleaning services are managed in-house.
The group has, however, managed to avoid extensive contracting out of jobs and services after “modernising” employees’ terms and conditions, and closing its costly civil service pension scheme to new joiners in the mid-90s, says Andy Bodle, the director of operations and HR at Royal Museums Greenwich.
“We were facing then what many [institutions] were facing now and it was a question of protecting the business, ensuring it was able to thrive, while also protecting jobs in the long run,” he says.
The changes led to Royal Museums Greenwich introducing a defined contribution pension scheme for new recruits and moving away from a Monday to Friday 9am-5pm working pattern, which required staff to be paid more at weekends.
“We couldn’t afford to open on Sunday mornings because we couldn’t afford to pay the double-time overtime wages,” says Bodle. “We realised that the terms and conditions were driving the business, rather than the other way around.”
Reducing tension
Although unions and staff initially resisted the changes, several measures were taken to prevent tensions from escalating. An employee council, comprising union and non-union members, ensured thorough consultation with the workforce.
“Basically, we had to explain the business needs to everyone involved, and communicate our vision and explain where we wanted to get to,” says Bodle.
“In my experience, I found that people can be quite tolerant when they understand what
you are trying to do.”
A management development programme was also established, after staff identified a need for further training during the consultation process.
“Training was necessary because the business structure was changing so much,” adds Bodle.
For many museums, however, making changes to pensions and terms and conditions, or contracting out services alongside other cost-saving measures, is going to present several challenges.
“It is hard to strike a balance,” says a senior museum director. “Museums can’t just refuse to find ways of making savings and therefore go bust. They have got to try and keep body and soul together. I’m sure many museums and galleries are looking at things that they once would have thought were unpalatable.”
Unions will continue to challenge the privatisation of jobs and services, pushing instead for existing and new staff to be given more flexible contracts rather than be employed by a private firm or work on zero-hours contracts.
“Museums are undoubtedly struggling because of short-sighted central government cuts that, in the case of arts and culture, amount to nothing less than philistinism, and we do sympathise with the institutions,” says PCS’s Serwotka.
“But the answer to short-termism is not more short termism.”
Tate and the National Gallery
• Staff at the National Gallery in London went on continuous strike action on 17 August. PCS union members, who have so far taken 92 days of strike action, are protesting against the privatisation of the gallery’s visitor-facing services, including ticket sales, security and front- of-house. At the beginning of September, staff on strike handed over a 130,000-name petition against the gallery’s privatisation plans.
• Tate, in London, was also subject to a campaign by PCS members employed by the private firm Wilson James. The union claimed privatised staff are employed on zero-hours contacts and are paid £2.50 less per hour than colleagues doing the same jobs but employed directly by Tate. “PCS members employed by Wilson James receive no contractual maternity pay or proper access to pensions,” the union said.
“A meagre increase of 13p was seen as an insult by PCS members, who boycotted
a Late at Tate event as a result.” A petition calling on Tate and Wilson James to end the pay disparity had attracted 1,514 signatures as Museums Journal went to press.
“Employee welfare is important to Wilson James and our clients, and we always consult our employees regarding any concerns that are raised,” said a Wilson James spokesman. “Our staff working at Tate are paid a rate equivalent to the London Living Wage.”
• Talks are underway at Tate and the National Gallery to resolve the disputes.
National Museums Scotland and Amgueddfa Cymru
• Some National Museums Scotland (NMS) staff went on strike after talks between the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union and the museum service collapsed.
The seven- day walk out at NMS’s five venues in August was part of a union campaign for the reintroduction of weekend allowances for visitor operation staff, which were scrapped for new employees in 2011.
PCS said those employed after this date received up to £3,000 less a year for working weekend shifts. An NMS spokesman said reintroducing weekend payments was “unaffordable” in a climate of public sector funding cuts.
• In Wales, the National Waterfront Museum in Swansea, Big Pit National Coal Museum in Blaenafon, National Slate Museum in Llanberis and National Wool Museum in Dre-fach Felindre were closed on 29 August.
The closures were part of a long-running dispute between PCS and Amgueddfa Cymru (National Museum Wales) over proposals to scrap premium payments for weekend working – a move that the union said would slash pay for front-of- house staff by £2,000 to £3,000 a year.
“Management has threatened to dismiss staff who refuse to sign up to the changes, then re-engage them on the nferior terms,” the union said in a statement. A spokeswoman for National Museum Wales said it had presented PCS with a new offer, which includes an additional £300 for each person affected on top of the compensatory payments already offered, worth about £3,600.
Their basic pay will also rise by 6%, rather than 4%, and all staff will receive at least the Living Wage of £7.85 an hour. “It is the best we can offer within the financial resources available to us, which have been cut by over 20% in recent years,” said the spokeswoman.
Further strike action has been suspended while negotiations continue.
Rebecca Atkinson