From a former Box Office Team member in response to the article BECTU posted on 17th June

A couple of days ago BECTU posted an article on their website in response to a post on this blog about their involvement with the Young Vic's decision to let go all of the Box Office staff and dramatically reduce the shifts offered to the Duty Managers.

BECTU do not agree with the post on this blog and believe they worked with the Young Vic with the staff's interests at heart. However, as an affected member of staff I do not agree that this is the case and I would like to address the points that BECTU raised in their argument.

1.
"A restructuring proposal was discussed at an initial meeting between management and BECTU."

 Yes, this was the case. However, it was a meeting that excluded the Young Vic's BECTU representative - the one person who should have been there to speak on behalf of the staff. BECTU have not explained why this person was not invited.

 2.
"The original proposal improved significantly as a result of that meeting and was then the subject of two consultation meetings with BECTU members. Both of those meetings were open to any affected BECTU member to attend."

 I do not know what the original proposal was, but the new proposal involved people losing their jobs with no warning or consultation. The two meetings open to staff involved very little consultation as the Young Vic had already gone ahead with their decision.

 3.
"At the second of those meetings the members were given the choice of seeking further improvements to the compensation package on offer, or to reject the proposal completely and inform management that it was not supported. The members' decision was to pursue the first option and in doing so they also identified what improvements they wished to see."

 BECTU said we could stick with our token severance pay or they could hold up the red card and say they do not agree with the new staffing proposal - a little late considering the four replacement jobs had already been advertised. The only 'improvement' to the process that could have been made was earlier consultation, but by the time BECTU had spoken to us, our jobs were dead in the water. In many respects the meeting was futile.

 4.
"Following that, further negotiations produced an improved package, particularly in the areas the members had identified. This improved package has now been accepted in principle by the members but individual details are being worked through."

 To make clear what an improved package is, we need to separate the box office staff from the duty managers.

Duty Managers: Not being involved in these negotiations I can only provide a brief overview of what I understand. Initially, the Duty Managers were told that between four of them there would be a couple of shifts available in three months time. This meant they had not officially lost their jobs, they had just lost their work, consequently they would not have to be paid off. Now they will be compensated for loss of earnings in some way, so it is true to say that they now have a better deal than originally.

 Box Office: All Box Office staff have had their jobs cut and offered a token amount of severance pay with four weeks left to work. BECTU did propose introducing a 60 day consultation period, but this was after we had been sent letters informing us our jobs would no longer exist and after the new roles were advertised. It was too little, too late. As I have already said the time for consultation was before our jobs were cut, not after. This has been a difficult and upsetting time for all involved particularly because of the lack of respect we have been shown by management in not only this instance but for the past year. Our thoughts on how box office can be improved are not wanted and the lack of warning or consultation has made it an unbearable place to work our remaining shifts in.
Since this meeting it has been agreed that staff can leave their roles earlier but be paid for the remaining shifts (a few hours each), however, this has been arranged not by BECTU but by a member of the Box Office team.

 5.
"No formal agreement was given until the members had their say."

 I am not sure what this references as the new jobs replacing the box office team were advertised hours after we had learnt we had lost our jobs. This was before the two 'consultation' meetings with BECTU.

 6.
"BECTU always has, and always will, be guided by its members when it comes to negotiations on their behalf."

 This has not been the case in this instance.

7.
"It is unfortunate that a couple of selective quotes, taken out of context, are being presented as an accurate portrayal of a meeting which lasted over an hour and a half."

These quotes are of course snippets of a much longer conversation, however the context of the longer conversation was that things had been handled badly by both BECTU and the Young Vic. "It's not my finest hour" was in direct response to us asking why the Young Vic's BECTU representative had not been included in initial discussions - what I believe to be the missing link in all this.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by how this situation has been handled by both the Young Vic and BECTU. Particularly because for the last year we have been crying out for better communication and help to solve problems and our concerns have constantly been brushed aside. They are now using the problems we have highlighted as reasons to why the box office and front of house are being restructured, as if we were the problem.

 Lyn Gardner tweeted "Situation with @YoungVicUshers seems to be less about what's been done as how it's been done which often reflects culture of a building" which hits the nail on the head. Sometimes jobs do need to go, but do it properly and professionally and this blog would not have been created.