No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

[Psamathe]

...

Yes, we all know that and it has been covered in February's Cycle. So you said that "was more misleading than saying what was actually done" So pray tell us what was actually done that was not covered in Cycle. And the couple of others that nobody seems bothered enough about to even know their names? What of them?

You should really be asking the CTC about all this, rather than me. Ok, they are not too keen on telling people, but I ca't go on talking for them despite their silence. e.g. my copy of cycle did not say CJ had been made redundant. But start asking the CTC to explain rather than me (please). Oh, they don't respond to e-mails (which makes asking them that little bit harder).

Ian

No, I'm asking you. You made the accusation that what was said was different from what was actually done. So I'm asking you, since I assume you were not fabricating the accusation, what you know that is different from what the CTC has said - which was demand had fallen to such an extent that three staff were made redundant and the savings made used to better support more popular activities. So tell us what you know that allowed you to make that statement in good faith.

Sorry but I've better things to do than "take your test". I read the Feb Cycle Magazine. I've read what one person made redundant said on this forum. You can read them to. But I don't justify my comments to you and not through a sequence of questions making out you want to know something when yo are actually trying to test me. That is just deceptive and I'm too busy for your games.

Ian

[TonyR]

Not a test. Just asking you to back up your accusations with some substance. We can all draw our own conclusions from you unwillingness to do so, so I'll let it rest.

[Psamathe]

Not a test. Just asking you to back up your accusations with some substance. We can all draw our own conclusions from you unwillingness to do so, so I'll let it rest.

Read what I wrote: I read the Feb Cycle Magazine. I've read what one person made redundant said on this forum. You can read them to.. That I wont spend my time fishing out Feb Cycle Magazine, typing in excerpts, time going back through this thread to find quotes from an individual made redundant does not mean I failed your test (i.e. your inference that I cannot justify my comment about the CTC not telling people what they have actually done). Sorry, you are playing silly games trying to fault an argument. I answered your questions on the basis they were questions. Now I find I was wasting my time as you were trying to play tricks. That I will not waste my time further on your games indicates nothing.

Ian

[Chris Jeggo]

Where and when did the CTC ever publish the fact that it had made three staff members redundant?

[langsett]

Chris, I think if you look back CTC has never made announcements on staff redundancies

It is probably best not comment on the individual case, as it may still be subject to the process?

That aside I would say that where a member of staff leaves and organisation they have worked at for many years, and that is done in good standing, then it may be reasonable to expect some notification of that, some thanks from the organisation and in the case of CTC as a membership body to tell members who may have had cause to interact or work with that person to pass on their wishes, and I hope this is something which may be noted?

[Chris Jeggo]

Thanks, Langsett.

My question was really a challenge directed at Tony R, and I should have made that clear by quoting.

CJ and a couple of others (whose names I don't know) have been made redundant. That you are unaware of this really emphasises the "omission" by CEO and CTC in not announcing this to the membership.

Ian

Yes, we all know that and it has been covered in February's Cycle. So you said that "was more misleading than saying what was actually done" So pray tell us what was actually done that was not covered in Cycle. And the couple of others that nobody seems bothered enough about to even know their names? What of them?

Psamathe is right. I have searched several issues of 'Cycle' for the word 'redundant' and never found it. In the February issue Paul Tuohy said "With very low demand, we have decided to stop our dedicated Technical and Touring helplines. Instead, we'll be reinvesting this resource." That second sentence is management-speak for 'we have made three members of staff redundant', i.e. what was actually done. Was Tony R right in calling it misleading? Yes! A resounding YES!

In the February 'Cycle' there was somewhat more in the Letters pages, but that came not from the Council nor from the executive.

[gaz]

Where and when did the CTC ever publish the fact that it had made three staff members redundant?

In a manner of speaking they published it on this thread on 11 December 2014: Post from a Councillor.

... I have some facts ... 3 roles have been made redundant – part time communication officer, information officer and technical officer and 2 roles have been realigned. ...

I feel that Philip has repeated a statement made to him by the executive, possibly originating from Matt Mallinder who appears to be the designated contact for queries relating to the decision.

Whilst I can accept that a Councillor is empowered to make statements on behalf of the Club, IMO it would have been much better for the executive to have done so. Perhaps if someone in the executive were to "feel passionately about improving the communication outputs from CTC" it would have happened, then again perhaps not.

[SA_SA_SA]

NB the CTC is recruiting a projects manager:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/vacancies

[mjr]

Oh good. I expect all local groups have been hoping for more managers at head office...

[langsett]

A question was raised about Guildford communicating that posts were being made redundant, as this is a managerial decision, and as a substantial number of posts have been made redundant over the last 4 years or so, I am not aware that it has ever been raised that such decisions be consulted or communicated?

[Psamathe]

A question was raised about Guildford communicating that posts were being made redundant, as this is a managerial decision, and as a substantial number of posts have been made redundant over the last 4 years or so, I am not aware that it has ever been raised that such decisions be consulted or communicated?

I goes beyond just making posts redundant. It has removed an entire function that was providing a service to members i.e. effectively removing the member service. So member should be told that this benefit to their membership has been withdrawn (and members not happy about that given the option to leave and receive a membership pro-rata refund). You cannot get people to join a club on the basis of "we offer x, y and z" and then, after they have paid their subs just withdraw one of those services. And that CTC think they can speaks volumes as to the regard they have for the membership/donors.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... You cannot get people to join a club on the basis of "we offer x, y and z" and then, after they have paid their subs just withdraw one of those services. ...

That's pretty much what happened to life members when the Cyclists' Touring Club became the Cyclists' Touring Charity. ( BTW, I appreciate from your earlier posts how much you feel you were misled.)

[Psamathe]

... You cannot get people to join a club on the basis of "we offer x, y and z" and then, after they have paid their subs just withdraw one of those services. ...

That's pretty much what happened to life members when the Cyclists' Touring Club became the Cyclists' Touring Charity. ( BTW, I appreciate from your earlier posts how much you feel you were misled.)

To be honest (and maybe a bit selfish and at risk of sounding unsympathetic to those who lost their jobs - which I certainly am not), it does not affect me personally as my membership renewal came up shortly after this issue came to light. I am disappointed in that Cycle interests me, Touring interests me and being part of a Club appeals to me - and I then find that the Cycle Touring Club management has decided to be "none of the above".

But one thing I strongly object to is people/companies/organisations unilaterally moving the goal posts. Two parties have an agreement (e.g. one pays the other money in return for services over a defined period of time). It in then incumbent on both those parties to honour that agreement. The party who has been paid on the basis of an offering cannot then unilaterally decide they are not going to honour the agreement and provide the agreed services. To my mind such behaviour is unacceptable. And for an organisation that is so dependent on the goodwill and generosity of its members to behave in such a manner just beggars belief.

Ian
(Edit: Sorry, been a long day and I've just realised I'm sort of repeating myself; so I'll shut-up now)

[gaz]

Minutes of Council Meeting 17 January 2015 (my emphasis).

The recent restructure is now complete, 5 people were put at risk and 3 people were made redundant. We have received member feedback saying we are dropping Technical and Touring information on the web and in ’Cycle’, which is not the case. We have made this clear in our membership communications. The resources released have enabled us to employ a full time Communications manager who starts in March.

I'll be the first to admit that I've opted out of the majority of CTC's electronic communications but by 17 January 2015 the only knowledge I had of the situation came from this thread. Bearing in mind that the CTC does not consider the forum to be an official channel of communication can anyone point me to an official explanation of the restructure other than that posted on 11 December 2014 by Philip Benstead?

I would like to understand how it was made clear in membership communications, or was it nothing more than the "automated response" on the technical e-mail in box.

[thirdcrank]

gaz

Perhaps the points you raise justify the appointment of a communications officer to replace the technical officer.