Growing Unease

There's no doubt in my mind that unease and unrest are widespread within probation at the present time, and it's increasing. There are growing signs of anger and irritation with the Napo leadership, particularly with the General Secretary Ian Lawrence and his seeming inability to find time to communicate with the membership via the medium of the internet. 

The Forum pages that have been mostly ignored over the last few months have recently shown signs of coming to life with critical questioning of the union's handling of things, together with exasperation at the lack of information and guidance from HQ. I've said before and I say again, I find it astonishing that in an age when the computer and internet give so much power to communicate quickly and efficiently, Napo have singularly failed to use the medium more effectively. 

In many respects this blog only enjoys the success it does because it fills the vacuum that so obviously has been allowed to develop. Yes of course everyone's busy and there's a lot going on. Branch officials are working their socks off and to my knowledge no one is criticising them. But this is a crisis of great significance to thousands of people and they need very regular amounts of information, reassurance and guidance and they are not getting it at the moment.

Yesterday's blog post, based on the latest from Joe Kuipers, the Chair of Avon and Somerset Probation Trust, generated quite a bit of interest and comment. I've reproduced three that I feel give a flavour of feeling at the present time:-

I applaud the sentiments but fear staff had been placed in an impossible position of Grayling's making. Probation staff are used to having conflicting demands placed upon us and we have always coped. This really is too much and there is no will, amongst the vast majority of staff to make this work. Staff in NPS have been described by Grayling as "highly skilled" to the growing resentment of CRC staff as by omission, rather than actuality, they are not described as such by Grayling. NPS was over subscribed FACT, CRC was under subscribed FACT. However, NPS allocated staff are to be driven hard by Grayling to make this work, with CRC staff eventually being able to pass from his control. So where are we? We are in a process of splitting that will not work especially where staff are in the same buildings. There is a determination from a growing number of staff, whose views have been ignored and bitterly resent their treatment, that this WILL BE UNDERMINED. They are embedded in both camps, NPS and CRC, so please don't think the issues will be between the two businesses. This situation has created deep and insurmountable divisions between staff inside each business. WE ARE DIVIDED WITHIN. 

********************* 

I echo some of the concerns above, especially in relation to the 'highly skilled' tag that Grayling has placed on those in the NPS. I have been allocated to the NPS and whilst I initially thought that I was 'lucky' (sorry to use that term), it is increasingly looking like a poisoned chalice, and one that WILL cause tensions (and indeed already is to some degree) and a significant increase in stress. My work colleague whom I sit next to, who has greater experience, who has mentored me and who has co-worked high risk, including at one time MAPPA 3 cases, is in the CRC. Our close relationship is changing day by day, and I cannot see us ever bridging the gap that is now growing between us. It is somewhat ironic that a split has caused bigger splits! 

I really cannot see this working, and relying on goodwill is nothing but a false hope as there is a ever decreasing sense of this, growing less by the day. The 'banter' in the office now consists of remarks between people who are NPS and CRC, and whilst it appears to be gentle ribbing, you can tell that it is underpinned by resentment. Very sad given that those doing it, until last week, would never have stopped so low. What is more prominent, and indeed more vocal, is the fact that the goodwill of the staff has been, if not lost, then significantly eroded. A comment made to a ACE the other day was along the lines of 'yeah, whilst your not working in the chambers, you appear to have no problems herding us onto the trains'. Only a month ago this level of dissent would NEVER have happened and I fear that this too will only get worse, indeed I know if two Directors and one manager who are just waiting to accept their redundancy. It will not only be them we lose, but also their experience. This will be the hardest to replace and my concerns are that any replacements may come from the Civil Service and have little understanding of what we do, why we do it and more importantly what DRIVES us to do it.

I feel that we are now in a position (my own views only) where antagonism is high, intransigence is growing and there is no way out of this. I do fear for the service but not half as much as I fear for my own health, those of my colleagues and for those we seek to assist. 

I'm planning to spent the day updating my CV; it is a somewhat pyrrhic victory for Grayling and I hope that he is happy!

***********************

In effect Joe Kuipers is saying forget your grievances and working to rule; forget the fact that ideologues in government, NOMS and Trusts do not see the bigger picture; forget all your misgivings about TR and its associated risks; forget your worries about future working conditions and remuneration. Instead put your heart and soul into making TR work, be good neighbours in case the wall comes down – presumably the hope being that the TR Wall won't stand as long as the Berlin Wall. Was it the people or the politicians who brought down the Berlin Wall?

Joe is essentially saying, Don't rock the boat, don't dissent. This is what top-down change-makers always end up saying: the legitimate government has decided this will happen and the rest of us are under a democratic obligation to comply. We are where we are. This is a patrician view of history. On the other hand, the history of trade unionism has been one of struggle against unenlightened rulers. We have a history of civil disobedience in this country that was instrumental in gaining universal suffrage and more recently rejecting the poll tax. Gandhi and Martin Luther King rejected the status quo and chose the route of civil disobedience to bring about change. It is not for the workers to bear the responsibility for whether TR works or not, nor for them to go out of their way to this end.

If you believe something is wrong you don't make it right by going into a state of denial and pretending all is well. You cannot be true to your values and principles if you're expected to embrace the TR pragmatism in the workplace, but worry about it at home. To be one of Joe's good neighbours you will need to assimilate Orwellian doublethink. You will need to maintain a state of cognitive dissonance – and that will have long-term health consequences. The real neighbourly task is to unite against the neighbours from hell – The Graylings of this world! And the hand-wringing functionaries within probation.

Saying the whole is greater than the sum of its parts sounds nice, but it's a bit too metaphysical for the real circumstances that face probation workers. To go the extra mile on behalf of TR will entail operational gymnastics, papering over the cracks, pretending that the faults are operational in nature – that a flowchart here and there, and sets of guidance will make it work for the benefit of all. But everybody knows 'It's the design, stupid!' It's a flawed design – but if individual workers start to forget this they will end up blaming themselves for its failures.