The War Goes On

Where do we start in trying to make sense of the news that Napo's legal action against TR has been abandoned? Quite understandably there was an outpouring of anger and incredulity on the blog last night. In essence many contributors are saying they not only feel massively let down, they have lost trust in the union's leadership and it's going to be difficult in my view to see how they can regain it. 

Members are being asked to swallow on trust that we won major concessions from Chris Grayling and the MoJ in terms of an acceptance that TR was risky and that steps would be taken to rectify the situation prior to sale of the CRC's. However, the disgraceful gloating by the MoJ's spin doctor paints a rather different picture, effectively denying there's any problem at all. I have no idea if this hastily-written statement was authorised or not, but its defiant tone will effectively ensure that the war goes on:- 

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said "Napo made it clear from the start that their goal was to disrupt these essential reforms. They have palpably failed to do so but have ended up running up a large legal bill. We are pleased Napo have backed down before they could waste even more time and money. 

These reforms have been and continue to be carefully managed with a focus on both the safety of the public and our employees. They are essential if we want to bring down the stubbornly high reoffending rates."

Just as the recent communications from the General Secretary have been ill-considered in tone and in my view confirm his unsuitability for the job, whatever transpires from publication of the MoJ's 'undertakings', they clearly seem to fall into the same category as Neville Chamberlain's famous 'note' waved before the camera's in 1939.

As I write this, I simply have no idea why in the end the legal advice to Napo was that there was no case to take before the court, based apparently on as yet unspecified 'undertakings' made by the MoJ, but subsequently rubbished by the MoJ spokeswoman. The whole thing stinks and we need explanations, and fast. TR is either risky, or not. We say it is, they say it isn't. Wasn't this the basis of the legal challenge? 

Meanwhile, I predict that the MoJ statement will prove to have been a very unwise decision indeed and will serve to both escalate the war against TR and change its nature to one of individual action rather than anything union-organised. I'm supported in this view by the following e-mail received early this morning:- 

Hi Jim,

I've been up grinding my teeth since 3:26 am, and thought I would finally finish the email I've wanted to write for ages...

I work in HR, for Xxxxxxxx CRC, and I'm one of the deluded members of staff who have held out hope for the past year and a half that TR would fall through, but now I am left feeling completely demoralised.

Because of my 'back office' role I haven't wanted to comment publicly on your blog, however I read your blog religiously on a daily basis, along with most of my corporate services colleagues. Following the enhanced voluntary redundancy announcement, operational staff in our CRC were in an uproar because they weren't offered the same 'opportunity' as corporate services staff, but believe me, I'd much rather keep my job. I know my role is disposable, and HR is completely replaceable with any ol' outsourced shared services centre, but I completely believe in the good work probation does, and will be genuinely distressed to have to leave.

My job is to support staff, my concern is for staff welfare, and I am seriously worried about you all, especially now. I have been so disappointed by the Senior Management Team who have provided no guidance, support or motivation to employees. In my role I always encourage people to take time off when they are not well, because in the grand scheme of things, work is work, and life is life.

The only possible thing I can envisage now to stall proceedings is the route of 'passive resistance'. It would make my job harder, but if there were mass absences due to work-related stress, then the service would simply not be able to function. You all are irreplaceable - there is no pool of qualified Probation Officers floating about - in an earlier recruitment campaign, we hardly received any response.

I know this course of action may be unlikely, as Probation staff are highly dedicated to their work, however it sends the clearest message (and most people would be able to receive occupational sick pay). Sickness absence in Xxxxxxxx has significantly increased since June, and our sickness levels are the Xth highest.

Thanks so much for maintaining your blog and opening it up as a resource for people to share information about TR - I've completely relied on it for the past year and a half.

Take care of yourself, and best wishes for the future,

I was going to leave it there for now and see what transpires during the course of today, but this has just come in and I think it's worth quoting in full, especially for all you readers down there at Noms HQ:-

There is a lot of silliness being said and a few more reasonable responses to the news. I am told that certain senior NOMS officials find this blog amusing and like nothing better than to quote from it during meetings with Napo officials. The outpouring of unreasoned anger directed against Ian Lawrence and the national officials for acting responsibly in relation to getting the best outcome that was realistically possible in the circumstances is apalling and unjustified. There were undoubtedly good reasons to discontinue the JR not least the prospect of losing. Grayling caved in and basically gave Napo what they were requesting. Abandoning TR was not what the JR was about even though a lot of Napo members thought it was. There are too many robots working flat out to make it work for it to be stopped now. Many of those who are angry have done precious little other than complain.

So Grayling 'caved in' did he.........?