Terry Bamford states ("Dare to be different", 11 October) that "the culture of the NHS is not one of empowerment". Having both worked previously as social workers, and now for the NHS, we would take issue with him on one or two points.
Certain branches of the NHS, such as health promotion, also employ the values of "self-determination, participation and empowerment", being aware of the links between self-esteem and the ultimate health of individuals and communities. Such values are gaining ground within public health and are now being seen in partnerships with local communities, such as local Sure Start schemes.
User participation in planning and service delivery is growing and is well established within primary care mental health services. We recently completed some research into how newly formed primary care organisations are involving the public in their decision-making. We found evidence of commitment to establishing links with local communities and involving users and the wider public in the planning process. We interviewed nurses, GPs and other board members.
Many do see traditional paternalistic attitudes and values as barriers to effective public involvement. They also see constraints in the current pace of change within health and its accompanying pressures on health-care workers, and in a shortage of the appropriate knowledge and skills. Some have recognised that social services have experience and expertise in how to effectively engage individuals, groups and communities. These are seen in a positive light and some are beginning to work together to utilise this experience.
Lynne
Irving and Mick Bond
Research section
North Derbyshire Health Authority
No help from Unison….
I was very interested to read the letter from Dave Draycott, Unison senior shop steward (18 October), recognising invaluable work undertaken by the union at a local branch level. I am an education social worker with a local authority and my experience could not have been more different.
The authority where I work has a lease car contract with its staff that is punitive, oppressive and discriminatory. A period of serious illness during the term of the contract is punished, after six months, by the usual halving of salary, but also by the doubling of employee contributions to the car leasing scheme.
In my case, already being a part-time worker and thus with the prospect of quarter pay, I calculated that my reduced salary would just about cover my new lease payments, although it might be necessary to add a small contribution from my savings to enable me to stay in the employ of the council.
I had suffered heart failure and had eased back into work after eight months, to be met with the demand for £303 in "fines" for being ill for so long. I took myself to the local Unison branch union office and said that this contract was discriminating against those who had no control over their level of sickness. It was nothing more than a tax on the sick and must be challenged.
I was met with a total lack of interest, understanding and empathy. When I complained about the contract, the response was: "Well, you signed it didn't you?" followed by "don't know what you're upset about, you were going to leave last year anyway." A true statement, prior to renegotiation, but massively irrelevant.
It the national union is even less helpful than this, then trades unionism will be dead in 10 years.
Roger
Andrew
New Milton
Hampshire
….and little ambition
Reluctantly, I have to disagree with Dave Draycott's view (Letters, 18 October) that social workers need to be in Unison.
As a senior shop steward for public sector union Nupe in the 1980s, I campaigned against our absorption into the "National Association", arguing that branches would lose their distinctive social services focus as part of a one-size-fits-all local government trade union.
More recently, working within the NHS I have become increasingly conscious of how our profession is under-represented and unrecognised compared with the power and influence wielded by the royal colleges within both health and social care environments.
In contrast to the medical professional bodies, Unison has neither the need (I am afraid there are not enough social workers) nor the imperative (social workers are neither on the blue collar cutting edge nor are they on the receiving end of substantial government largesse) to consider the needs of social work as a profession or its practitioners as individuals.
In fact, Nalgo and its successor Unison have shown that their commitment is to the majority "local government" worker with a consequent levelling down of ambition, whether you are a social worker or a typist.
I do not mean this in an elitist sense. I am quite prepared to support action to support other workers, but if we are going to improve the quality of social work we have to focus specifically on the conditions of work for social workers, and this means status as well as pay!
To achieve this we need a professional body as well as a trade union. As a republican I may baulk at having a royal college, but we must move away from a situation where the interests and views of the social work profession are, allegedly, represented by elite groups such as the Association of Directors of Social Services.
Our interests need to be represented by professional bodies that are able to contribute knowledgeably to social policy as well as to the development of our profession and ultimately to the improvement of services for our clients.
Now is the time for all social workers to come to the aid of the professional. We can keep our trade union and our principles, but we need to grow up now and enter the real political world, both for ourselves and for our clients.
Andrew
Brunt
Trent Children's Task Force
