News

The idea of reinforcements would probably be music to the ears of mental health staff, community mental health teams and approved social workers everywhere. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any area of social care in which a few extra pairs of hands would not be welcome.

In mental health, the increasing pressures of community treatment and the shift of emphasis in policy towards public protection have all contributed to the demands of the job.

So the final report from the workforce action team into the mental health national service framework has much in its favour. It recommends the creation of "support, time, recovery workers" - or STRs for short - who would form a new layer of unqualified staff providing companionship and practical support to mental health service users.

In giving much-needed additional support to hard-pressed social workers, the envisaged role of STRs certainly has its attractions. But there are also drawbacks of a more insidious kind and it is as well to be aware of them.

The main drawback is the somewhat fuzzy boundary that marks off tasks requiring qualified professionals from those that do not. It opens up the possibility that, little by little, unqualified staff will end up carrying out tasks formerly regarded as the undisputed domain of qualified staff. The net effect of this could be that, far from gaining the additional support it so badly needed, the overall workforce will merely become deskilled.

There are similar concerns in nursing, where there is the prospect of a new breed of auxiliary health care assistants, and the growing reliance on procedures and "checklists" has given rise to corresponding worries in social work more generally.

As the scope for procedures and checklists is widened, so the scope for professional judgement is narrowed. Skilled social workers need support, but they do not want to be superseded.

Right to arbitrate

The move by local government employers to make it more difficult to end a pay dispute by arbitration is another attempt to erode social workers' employment rights.

If unions have to secure the agreement of employers before Acas can become involved it seriously weakens their position. If a pay offer is fair then what have the Employers' Organisation to fear from independent settlement of a row?

Unison is right to object even though it has never used a clause in the national agreement to invoke arbitration. If pay negotiations reach a stalemate, then it is a fair way of resolving the situation. If the unilateral right to call in arbitration is lost, surely industrial action by frustrated employees is made more likely, and that will be bad for service users.

News of this proposal from the employers comes shortly after Community Care revealed that the British Association of Social Workers is not recognised by five local authorities. Over-worked social care staff need their case to be made forcefully and that right must be upheld.