What went wrong, and why did Young Vic let it happen?

(Received anonymously by email).

I decided to write a blog post after a tweet by Lyn Gardner. I’ve been reading the blog since it started and broadly support what has been said. One of the problems is that the issues covered are widespread and varied and the blog has opened up a number of nasty wounds. The recent loss of jobs and redundancies have caused outrage but the root causes run much deeper and reflect a need for systemic change within the company.

Lyn Gardner said it perfectly and succinctly with only 140 characters at her disposal when she wrote “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”. I will aim for similar brevity in this post, although I feel I am doomed to failure.

First of all I’d like to say that each day there are members of staff heading into the Young Vic who are doing an amazing job. I think it’s fair to highlight the Taking Part team who engage new audiences, work with hard to reach groups and do everything in their power to uphold the heart of what we think the Young Vic to be.  I don’t want the fact that upper management have treated their lowest paid workers badly to take away from that, even though I am all too aware of the contradictions it brings.

As Lyn Gardner said the issues are not what has been done but how. Members of staff lost their jobs with no consultation and with no option of union support until the damage was done. The statement from the Young Vic offered little in the way of understanding the real issues and was more a limp explanation of what happened. Understandably they said they cannot comment on individual cases posted anonymously on a blog – I think we can all see why that is the case. However, saying that misses the point. They do not need to comment on anonymous grievances, rather they need to acknowledge that they are steering a ship with lots of unhappy passengers.  They need to come out publicly and say, we are sorry for the way in which we handled the job losses, we really screwed up, we screwed up big time.

After that they need to take a long hard look at what has gone so badly wrong, and they need to take responsibility for it. Why is it, that a couple of years ago their lowest ranking workers loved the building, loved the theatre, loved the ethos. And why is it that now they feel undervalued, not respected, and most importantly of all not listened to. The Young Vic doesn’t need to respond to individual grievances to do that, they just need to be open to the fact, that that is the reality for many of their staff and then address it.

I worked at the Young Vic for a long time, however I left a couple of months ago before the job losses took place. I was aware of what an unhappy place it was. When I was there, I was vocal and cried out for change whenever I could. Sometimes I think management relished my passion, other times I think they just wanted me to shut up and go away, but crucially whatever problems I highlighted were never acted upon. This not only made day to day working harder because things that were broken never got fixed, it also made me feel less and less valued. I was powerless. It was much easier to ignore staff and let them suffer, than to listen and make changes.

There have been a few comments bandied about that suggest David Lan has been protected by senior management as to what is happening in the organisation. I am not convinced this is true. I think David is aware but through no fault of his own, his perspective is skewed. The problems arise in the chain of command. The information he receives is refracted through the prism of the managers he speaks to. So when a problem occurs at the bottom, it is not the people at the bottom reporting to David, it is the managers of the people at the bottom. Those managers will not say “I’m just letting you know my staff think I am managing them badly”. The consequence of this is that the issue gets warped. I think it is this that gets in the way of what is really going on.

 In an article printed in the stage he is quoted as saying “If the people who are running our box office are part of our in-house teams and consequently come to our meetings and are better informed about our shows and what we are trying to achieve, they will be fully integrated into the life of the theatre.” This partly illustrates my point. It would appear he has been given the impression that change is needed as the front of house are not integrated enough. This would be better solved by asking the staff to come to meetings and involving them in conversations about the life of the theatre, not excluding or refusing to hear them.  On numerous occasions staff asked for meetings, and asked for involvement, but were told it’s too difficult to get everyone together. It seems that staff have lost their jobs because they aren’t integrated enough, which is a missed opportunity because integration is just what they have been asking for.

Since the treatment of staff has been made public I have received numerous emails and text messages from past staff members. Not front of house staff members, but staff working in many departments at all levels of seniority. They have all told me HR horror stories of the way redundancies and maternity cover have been handled. Obviously I can’t and won’t comment on others experience except to say, that these people aren’t bitter at losing their jobs (although they were obviously upset and angry at the time) every single one of them was just saddened, by the way they were treated. I mention this to reinforce the depth of the problem.

I hope with all my heart that the Young Vic can turn it around. Admittedly there is little they can do for the people who have lost their jobs. Even if they did a huge u-turn and changed their mind on everything it is too late, people are too winded, angry and upset. They have seen what value the Young Vic puts on their heads. But maybe, just maybe the Young Vic can put something in place to show those that work for them that they do care, that they are important, that they will be heard. They can of course only do this, if they mean it.

__

As always we are incredibly grateful for people coming forward with stories, opinions, and issues like this one.

From a former Young Vic staff member

"I was lucky enough to have spent many happy years at the Young Vic, though never admitting   just how many.  I  worked with enthusiastic dedicated BO staff,  but one thing that always worried me was the term "Casual" there were 3 of us who were lucky enough to be contracted staff left over from a bygone era, one of us still at YV, but new staff were employed on this "Casual" basis even though they went on to work for years and not just months or weeks, they were always happy to do any shifts that were on offer, train up new staff and work unsociable hours, without the benefits of holiday or sick payments. The Ushers were always a happy group of people, I remember Louisa & Kirstin employing staff all ages, students, actors a great team of people, some of which I believe are still there and there was always time for training, it seems a shame if this is not now the case. It is sad that BECTU seems to have let these staff down, for even if there were just a couple of members there should have been some negotiation. I can only wish you all well."

Hush money

It has recently been reported to us that an usher who was dismissed via email with no discussion or warnings has been offered compensation with a clause that they do not talk about Young Vic in a negative light on social media.
We have heard this directly from the individual concerned but do not know more, or indeed concrete details of the case.

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.

About BECTU

BECTU

BECTU have been cited on twitter and in statements from the Young Vic, suggesting their involvement in the recent troubles means that the situation is being dealt with professionally and fairly. This is not necessarily the case.

The Young Vic had been planning the changes (unbeknown to the staff) for some time and contacted BECTU to ask how they could implement the changes.  BECTU agreed to work with the Young Vic and held meetings in private, without the Young Vic’s BECTU representative being present. Why they acted in this way we do not know.  BECTU have offered no explanation. For the avoidance of doubt the Young Vic’s BECTU representative should be present at any meeting between the theatre and the union.

Consequently the only voice being heard was that of the Young Vic Management, whose agenda was pretty clear. If the Young Vic wanted to proceed with their plans BECTU gave them two options: 1) A 60 day consultation period in which to work out, alongside the affected staff, the best way to proceed and make changes 2) Pay the staff a paltry sum and get rid of them asap. Obviously the Young Vic opted for the latter. Obviously the staff would have opted for the former. The choice the Young Vic made was sanctioned by BECTU. They agreed to it. They wilfully excluded all affected staff AND the BECTU representative from negotiations. Consequently I do not believe the claim that BECTU’s involvement has made the situation any better.

Secondly in his email, the Chairman of the Young Vic board stated that BECTU were issuing a statement saying why it was a “good thing”. This claim needs to be challenged on BECTU’s own terms.  After the announcement was made staff were given the opportunity to meet with BECTU. In this meeting the man from BECTU said, and I quote “this has not been my finest hour” and agreed that it had been handled badly. He could not however answer the question why a consultation wasn’t offered, nor why he had allowed private meetings to take place. So there would appear to be big disconnect between what BECTU is telling its members in meetings and what it wants to say to the outside world.

He also said he was “appalled” at the Young Vic’s decision to advertise the new jobs less than 24 hours after staff had been informed their jobs would cease to exist.  On this point I should mention that staff who had only just lost their jobs were having to take telephone enquiries and answer questions from applicants for the new positions.

There has also been an assumption, that because there are jobs to apply for there is no problem to solve. This is wrong on a number of counts, but primarily 11 members of staff have been affected and only four jobs are on offer. Secondly the new roles exclude the majority of current staff who cannot work full time and every weekend, as they have freelance careers, child care issues, or are combining this job with other work. As with front of house jobs in the majority of theatres, part of the attraction is the flexibility involved. Furthermore, part of the reason the Young Vic front of house team is so strong is because of the variety of experience and personality the current staff bring.

So when the Young Vic says “Their concerns are being addressed and we have agreed a proposal for affected staff with BECTU.” please take it with a pinch of salt. And to be very, very, very clear their concerns are NOT being addressed, and they haven’t been for a very long time. That is why this blog exists, that is why there is a social media furore and that is why the Young Vic are having to make a statement at all.