Trouble at t' Mill

So here we are on the eve of the great probation sell off and understandably things are getting fractious. People send me stuff all the time because they want to do something to try and stop this whole disgraceful break-up of a proud, well-performing public service, and I'm enormously grateful because it informs, galvanises and helps to fill the empty pages. 

For fairly obvious reasons I have to be careful in deciding what to publish. Confidences are always respected, but I'm not the BBC and in the middle of a battle for survival, I don't feel the need to be balanced. In fact I'm quite partisan and utterly determined to try and win this battle, or at the very least be part of what future historians might conclude was a decent bloody attempt at trying to save the job, ethos and profession I love.

Despite the news that yesterday's Napo NEC 'endorsed the industrial action strategy', many people have voiced their concern at the stance taken by Napo in conducting negotiations with the PCA and MoJ/Noms and what they perceive as a lack of a decent fight to stop the whole Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles. The latest blog post by the General Secretary gives a hint of tensions brewing:-

I have seen a couple of e-mails coming in to Chivalry Road complaining about Napo not being in the national news every day. It's a great notion but sorry, it does not reflect the real world or fact that every day we are up against a host of other competing stories. 

Since May the 9th we have exploited a whole number of national media opportunities on press radio and TV, but just because you don't happen to see us when we are on, it does not mean that it has not happened! 

Working flat out 

Finally, and because I think it's worth saying just before we ramp up our response to the Government over TR and enter what will be an extremely hostile and testing environment. I want to make it clear that my National Officials and the Chivalry Road team are putting in a huge shift in defence of our members interests, often well over and above the normal call of duty. I am pleased to have them working with me, I am proud of their efforts and I have absolute faith in their ability. 

To summarise, whatever the content of the draft agreement, many, many people feel that entering into negotiations in the first place was a big mistake. I would not usually publish private e-mails, but such is the feeling amongst significant numbers of contributors to this blog that I feel it's appropriate in this instance. 

The following is a very recent e-mail exchange between a branch official and Napo General Secretary, but has now been circulated to all members of the branch in question. Readers must make up their own mind as to the validity of the points raised, together with the content and tone of the reply:- 


Hi Ian & Tom, 

Having read the TR negotiations & consultations dated 11/9/13, I feel compelled to express my concerns regarding the latest developments and instructions to local reps and branches. This contains a mixed message of negotiating on a national level whilst fundamentally passing the responsibility back to local representatives. It is our members who pay their membership rates to employ you for national collective bargaining with the appropriate expertise defending the terms of employment, as we currently know them. At this most crucial time our union needs to demonstrate the will to call for strike action in its own defence and survival. The change agenda, ignoring the history of our Service, seeks to divide and conquer. 
  
It appears to many who write within our branch that Napo represents a failure to recognise the true meaning of the collective bargaining and negotiation processes through devolving down to local branches the consultation process. Further, this exposes those branch officers who may not have had the required level of expertise essential for these employment related technical matters. It will therefore most likely leave members in all Trusts differentially exposed, creating  vulnerabilities that are different across the country at such a critical time. 

It is clear from what is presented that consultative processes and negotiation routes can never deliver a satisfactory outcome for our members. Fundamentally you are asking and expecting us to do a U-turn by engaging in consultations that effectively seek to privatise our jobs. On this point alone we should have been balloting for industrial action as the reality bites. You appear out of touch with members of the branches I speak with. From the indicative ballot it was a mistake to hide the turn out rate, those should have been used to illustrate to members the need to take action. Had Napo national got link officers and officials out to discover the fundamental ground swell of opinion and the desire from the membership to see real leadership from Napo and take the agenda forward for a proper ballot for action and have a real fight with the Government. You could be leading this fight and properly challenging this failing Grayling agenda. 

At the point when national negotiations started failing and no proper or legitimate mandate to allow for any agreement with employers which countenance privatisation in any form, the next step should be consideration to ballot for industrial action, thus seeking the views and a mandate from membership. Not to mention the potentials for arbitration later on. The juxtaposition that we now face is because things appear too fraught for you to properly manage.

Local reps, are now charged to take up the mantle with local management who are intent to deliver on the TR agenda and will use their authority and resources to drive it through. It is my view, and that of my branch, that national collective bargaining remains with both Napo and Unison to act to prevent the need to have this privatisation foisted onto local branches. If indeed this round of discussion fails what will be the national negotiating position?  
  
The next step should not be the passing of agreements or otherwise to local reps as this fails the need to have a national recognition arrangement.  As a JNCC representative of the only area to register a formal dispute over TR and failure to agree over practices of senior management and our local Board, Napo has done nothing I can see to ensure the rest of the country register further failures with local trusts over TR. 

I find myself asking why Napo appears weak and complacent raising more concern! To combat, this branches raise motions to galvanise and encourage action. I am further alarmed to discover from our branch NEC representative, that there has been no circulation to NEC reps and branches of an emergency motion. I am told it was at HQ in time for national mail out and it is an accepted motion within the constitutional rules. Yet it was not distributed, thus reducing member awareness to the important issues. It appears to me to confirm Napo are taking action to stifle circulation that calls for a fight and issues to be taken to the AGM,  we need to prevent the furtherance of the Grayling agenda by forwarding decisions to the more democratic platform of the AGM, not stifling member involvement. 

I have taken action to link with reps from our bid lot areas to ensure that we take a more localised and assertive approach and hopefully prevent a divide and rule outcome in xxxx, xxxxxx and xxxxx. I expect such an approach will need be thought of and replicated across other bid areas but there has been no central guidance/instruction to require this.

I hear daily from local members who are becoming disheartened with the way the process is being dealt with on a national level and we cannot be quiet whilst at the same time be expected to fight in isolation, which is what your proposals fundamentally mean. Napo need to say what it is really doing and get a mandate from members to do something more than hoping this might go away just from government incompetence and dishonest privateer companies. 
  
We need to meet it head on to ensure we kill the plans not try and cuddle them to death or we will be facing the death of our current Service and careers.

Regards 

If you had awaited the outcome of the NEC today and its decisions which are entirely different to the position that you suggest we are taking, then you might not have needed to write this e-mail. By the way your Branch helpfully withdrew its Emergency Motion as being overtaken by events. 

NEC reps have been invited to obtain the results of the indicative ballot and discuss these with Branches but the Officers and I are confident that it was the right decision not to make this public. 

I see that your Trust is in the news today too...........  

By all means come back to me after you have seen the next Branch memo about the consultation process and our position. Meanwhile you will not be surprised to hear that I fundamentally disagree with your criticism, but won't be taking it personally! 

Best wishes and yours in solidarity

Ian 

A few other matters have come to my attention. Firstly, the very sad and sobering news that it would appear the person responsible for the 'Save Probation' twitter account and blog has lost their job as a direct result of campaigning, and secondly, our old friend Sir Stephen Bubb continues to be a complete arse:-

I’m hot footing it from Glasgow to No 10 for a private meeting on the tender arrangements for the probation and rehabilitation reforms. I've been impressed with the care and skill that the Cabinet Office and MoJ have taken to listen to the issues that the third sector have raised and the support being given to ensure we can compete. But, as always, the proof of the probation pudding will be in the eating!  

Finally, a recent poll by 'We Own It' shows that 58% of the great British Public feel that G4S and Serco should be banned from public service bids.