I think the HR chief you are referring to is Xxxxx - I heard a rumour that there was a collection going on for their leaving but I haven't seen anything myself. I think there's about 5 POs in this division that have applied back to NPS so they are likely to go. The person from Xxxxx who has been directed to Xxxxxxxxx is one of them, so I wonder whether someone else will be directed there in future? The person from Xxxxx who has been directed to Xxxxxx has gone off sick with stress as of today. I hear both Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx offices are in dire straits in terms of staff being at work - there's lots of sickness and we now have the Easter fortnight upon us!
Our Team Manager said today that Sodexo intend to outsource a lot of our work to other agencies, eg 'Changing Lives'. This would involve them being trained to deliver all our programmes, etc. Obviously this is very worrying. It's one thing to be able to deliver groupwork, but to understand the underpinning theories behind it and be alert to what is going on with each participant, what to look for in terms of risk and need, takes skill and that can't be learned just like that!
The way it sounds, there'll be an admin hub with various staff from "supply chain" (ie other agencies) delivering a lot of the face to face work. Probation staff may be left with merely a monitoring function - obviously Sodexo don't think it warrants having trained POs for that. When they met with us in February at the Stadium of Light, they made everything sound rosy and people actually left feeling optimistic. How false all their words seem now.
The colour coding system is right. If a service user presents as not being ready to change, then hardly any resource will be allocated to them. This could work two ways - at PSR stage a lot of people say they are motivated to change and then their motivation evaporates a few weeks after being sentenced - waste of resources. Or, the most difficult people - the ones more likely to re-offend - will be assessed as unmotivated and not get much input at all. Which, of course, means they are able to carry on merrily with their behaviour unchallenged. Also, if word gets round, people will catch on and say they are not wanting to do anything in order to receive what they perceive as less interference from professionals in their lives - very dangerous!
Revoke and Re-sentence fails targets - so we have to try to avoid that.
Through the Gate, of course, isn't going to work. No-one wants probation input after a short custodial sentence. I hear there have been several recalls to prison already of these people for refusing to comply - so there's a few more offences and more prison spaces taken up that wouldn't ordinarily have been.
Another thing I heard is that we will be going back to half-backing and moving away from the POD system. We will have to do all the work of our half back if they aren't in the office, not just seeing people but checking under their name all the various functions on delius - such as officer diary, alerts, enforcement alerts, etc, etc. We've been told that to fail to do so will leave us open to disciplinary action. I don't know how Probation Chiefs can hold their heads up after they have failed in their duty of care to us as employees by allowing this travesty to happen - how dare they display Investor in People Awards!
The Unions need to now start acting in all earnest on behalf of members. CRC POs in particular need to know the Unions will be scrutinising any proposed new job descriptions - if there is a significant change to duties, that could be grounds for constructive dismissal and the Unions need to fight on our behalf.
The colour coding system is right. If a service user presents as not being ready to change, then hardly any resource will be allocated to them. This could work two ways - at PSR stage a lot of people say they are motivated to change and then their motivation evaporates a few weeks after being sentenced - waste of resources. Or, the most difficult people - the ones more likely to re-offend - will be assessed as unmotivated and not get much input at all. Which, of course, means they are able to carry on merrily with their behaviour unchallenged. Also, if word gets round, people will catch on and say they are not wanting to do anything in order to receive what they perceive as less interference from professionals in their lives - very dangerous!
Revoke and Re-sentence fails targets - so we have to try to avoid that.
Through the Gate, of course, isn't going to work. No-one wants probation input after a short custodial sentence. I hear there have been several recalls to prison already of these people for refusing to comply - so there's a few more offences and more prison spaces taken up that wouldn't ordinarily have been.
Another thing I heard is that we will be going back to half-backing and moving away from the POD system. We will have to do all the work of our half back if they aren't in the office, not just seeing people but checking under their name all the various functions on delius - such as officer diary, alerts, enforcement alerts, etc, etc. We've been told that to fail to do so will leave us open to disciplinary action. I don't know how Probation Chiefs can hold their heads up after they have failed in their duty of care to us as employees by allowing this travesty to happen - how dare they display Investor in People Awards!
The Unions need to now start acting in all earnest on behalf of members. CRC POs in particular need to know the Unions will be scrutinising any proposed new job descriptions - if there is a significant change to duties, that could be grounds for constructive dismissal and the Unions need to fight on our behalf.
I am furious with Sodexo's proposals to slash staff - it proves they don't care about anything but money. Screw service users and screw staff and, ultimately, screw the fact that there will be more offences and more victims. I am also furious to think that those with the biggest salaries are the ones that have been given EVR - the offer should have been opened up to all CRC staff - no-one wanted to work for a private company, we were unfairly selected using a pathetic process.
Yours,
Absolutely shocking. I feel angry. This was always so inevtiable. The one contradiction I will never get my head around is this: profit making company / reduction in re-offending. Offending behaviour is now a market, and court system the means of bleeding them dry. The trojan horse of PBR & £46 will fade into the mists of the past along with AWARD WINNING PUBLIC SERVICE.
ReplyDeletePurple Futures does not appear to be making cutbacks or major changes......
ReplyDeleteAh, but will they replace the po's going back to NPS? I think not!
DeleteNot yet, all the agency staff have their contracts fixed until Sept 2015 and our CEO said in her blog that basically we are alright for 2015 as Purple Future have not yet done the calculation on staffing. They are all at it, come Sept they will be talking about staff cuts, I wouldn't trust anyone from a private company, their main aim is profit. Don't be deluded.
DeleteSo, the principles of consistency regarding rehabilitation & risk management are now re-written as every area seems to be proceeding with its own version of CRC. No wonder the resistance to client relocation was written into the ORA, i.e. "No, you can't relocate to Hounslow for a job with BAA because you can't complete your Order there. You have to stay here in Barnsley until next September. Its the law." How might that fare under the scrutiny of Human Rights legislation?
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with Barnsley?
DeleteFrom Uncyclopedia:
DeleteBarnsley people used to keep coal as pets, but now there's no coal, they mehk do wi' ode rolls o' wallpaper. A common feature in Barnsley homes is chicken wire surrounding the dining table, usually attached to the legs by six-inch nails. Hens, banties and and sometimes prize cockerels (see *Cock-fighting/Badger-baiting) are kept within this enclosure. A hole in the table top facilitates any crumbs and leftovers to be scooped directly into the pit. Where livestock is not a priority, meals are eaten off trays whilst sat in front of the telly.
Purple futures. Sodexo, MTVNovo, they are all the same and will ALL make staff cuts. Do not be fooled because they have not announced cuts YET. This is what private companies do.
ReplyDeletePurple Futures said recently that they dont intend to go the same way as Sodexo............
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is THAT supposed to mean? There is more than one road to Hell. What ARE they going to do? Their 'reassurances' don't sound very reassuring to me.
DeleteThats what Purple Futures have said within the last 7 days in writing. Thats all I mean.You say their 'reassurances' don't sound very reassuring to me.Why not?
DeleteTelling someone what you are NOT going to do is NOT telling them what you ARE going to do. By failing to be specific about their intentions and withholding that information, they are unwittingly telegraphing the fact that their 'different' approach is likely to be equally unpalatable.
DeleteAnonymous2 April 2015 at 09:47. Gets it and agrees with Anonymous2 April 2015 at 10:24.
Deletehttp://jackofkent.com/2015/04/grayling-the-lord-chancellor-who-told-the-high-court-to-disregard-the-rule-of-law/
ReplyDeleteIn a judgment handed down today the High Court held that yet again the Ministry of Justice under Grayling had acted unlawfully.
DeleteIt may seem strange to some that the very government department running the court system of England and Wales would ever be held to have acted unlawfully. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has a duty recognised by statute to uphold the rule of law. But during Grayling’s time at the department, the Ministry of Justice has repeatedly been found to have acted unlawfully.
And today, on his birthday, came from the High Court another judgment that the Ministry of Justice had acted unlawfully, with a very telling passage.
The case was about whether Grayling could ignore the Ministry of Justice’s own statutory “Directions” (rules formally made under a statutory provision) when forcing a change of policy about the treatment of prisoners.
The High Court, unsurprisingly to anyone with a basic understanding of public law (in essence, the law which regulates activities of public bodies) held that it was not open to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to simply ignore Directions made under a statutory provision.
But in a revealing paragraph, the High Court detailed what the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice had instructed a barrister to make as a key submission:
54. Mr Weisselberg’s principal submission in response on this issue in oral argument was as concise as it was striking. The Directions were issued by the Secretary of State. He has the power to amend or revoke them; therefore he has the power to ignore or contradict them. They are not directions to him but by him, and he cannot be bound by them.
This was a remarkable submission. The judge described it as “striking” (which is judge-speak for “utterly bizarre”). It is dismissed with ease by the court:
55. We cannot accept this submission. The Secretary of State could indeed amend or revoke the Directions to the [Parole] Board. But so long as they remain in force they are binding on the Board and also binding on the Secretary of State, in the sense that he cannot lawfully tell the Board to ignore them or his officials to frustrate them.
The current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice appears to believe that because he makes the rules, it is perfectly fine for him to break the rules.
One problem with this approach is that the rule of law works both ways: you can hardly insist that others should abide by the law if you are happy to casually “ignore or contradict” the law. Another problem is that it shows a serious lack of understanding of the nature of statutory provisions: he could not simply tell his civil servants to “ignore or contradict” Directions he had made under a statutory provision.
In a junior minister all this would be a deplorable attitude. But in the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, it is a disgrace.
Grayling may well shrug at yet another court defeat, especially as he will “move on” soon.
But paragraph 54 of today’s judgment will provide a lasting memorial to his period in this historic office: the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who, in all seriousness, one day told the High Court to disregard the rule of law.
The only way that the CRCs will make the 10% to 15% profit is by cutting staff! This is not rocket science its the way they work.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE TO ANON at 09.25
DeleteAND to be repetitive the way the public and parliament were told they would work by one former outsourcer to whom I have referred before and who long ago gave evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee saying pretty much what he had earlier blogged and commented about in response to replies to his blog: -
http://buyingqp.com/2013/06/17/spend-to-offend-the-outsourcing-of-probation/
When the chief in a Northern CRC said that we have an "opportunity to influence sodexo" I wonder if one in three jobs going and the introduction of machines was what the chief had in mind.
ReplyDeleteWriting sure does help, in several ways.
ReplyDeleteAn Essex Unison Rep, who I wont here name but I am very grateful to for her persistence and determination managed to be interviewed by a journalist from her local newspaper who yesterday published a pretty good and thorough story beginning: -
"Dozens of jobs are set to be axed putting the public at risk from offenders, a union has warned."
That days editorial went big on the issue, getting basic facts wrong and including "
Swingeing cuts in public services are nothing new but they do raise some very serious questions.
The news that Essex Probation Service has to cut 100 jobs across the county has led some people to raise concerns about public safety. "
I was prompted to write and the next day - today - my letter - which has been very skilfully edited, is published boldly front and top centre of the letters page with the heading - which my text did not include -
"It's too late to sob about the cuts to our probation service"
I do not have a working scanner and am not technically capable of photographing digitally and up loading - so I cannot bring you the whole thing without much painfully slow two dyslexic fingered copy typing - which I am too lazy to do.
I just wish I could have become a true wordsmith to write a headline like that - meanwhile unless probation folk give the media the material they will not have anything to write about.
So writing helped me to feel a tiny bit better about myself - may have brought others some info they would not have had and may yet produce some active response from readers - but much, much more of it is needed if we are to get above or amongst the yahboo general election stuff.
I also had a tangle with a BBC radio journo, yesterday and rather than prompting them to correct an erroneous hourly news broadcast, they simply stopped broadcasting it - so dealing with the media is not always an easy business, but as with most things one gets better with practise.
I am rather pleased that by responding to a Tweet from a Norfolk Journo earlier in the week, not about probation at all, I ended up having a background briefing conversation with another reporter from that paper which eventually published: -
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/offenders_could_be_supervised_by_phone_as_probation_company_cuts_89_jobs_union_claims_1_4015816
The good work previously done by Tania Basset of Napo helped - she had already sent a press release, which that journo found and the local Napo folk spoke up as well.
So - as Jim began "Writing Helps"!
I especially noticed : -
"Nacro did not respond to requests for a comment."!!
The business case for cuts in staffing is terribly simple. The major costs for the CRCs are as follows, salaries, property, pensions, and IT. Salaries will take over 80% of total costs.
ReplyDeleteSo when you take out the 10% saving that the MOJ have built into the contract, subtract the 10% to 15% profit the CRC senior managers and shareholders expect that leaves you with finding 20% - 25% cuts in the budget.
In a budget of £20m per annum you need to find cuts of approximately £4m to £5m per annum. Saving money on property, pensions, and IT will not give you the level of savings you need.
You therefore make the cuts in staffing with the most obivous targets being middle management and probation officers, expensive resources. You cut deep at first so you can recruit later if you need to fill gaps.
Your new recuits will have very different terms and conditions from current staff and you, the CRC would expect that in two years time you would change all the current terms and conditions.
Current senior managers, who I have no sympathy for, will be used up very quickly as they have no understanding of being on the commercial end of JFDI. They have in my experience not survived.
Personally gutted at what is happening to hard work dedicated staff, sold down the river by inept senior managers who if as a group had fought this issue would have saved the probation service. The senior civil servants I spoke to where always surprised at how easy NAPO at the top level and CPO rolled over.
Ah Russell Bruce's probation legacy "JFDI": how his managers, so often on the end of that directive, now laugh at him....
DeleteIan Lawrence - Gen Sec - Article for Russell Webster's Blog - NAPO's justice priorities: -
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/oghks49
All that is talked about on here are the bad points of TR, Grayling, Sodexo, kiosk reporting. How about some positive views be shared about TR including some of the positive changes being brought in by the CRC owners throughout England and Wales? With 8000 hits a day, there must be some positive views to share?
ReplyDeleteAnnon 12:25
DeleteMaybe you could share a few if the positive changes being brought in by CRCs?
I really don't see any.
Look for the positives in TR. Your view of it will be shaped by how it has affected your thinking and impacted on your circumstances. TR has produced winners and losers. It was a victory for the neoliberal project of shrinking the state; it's a win for the private companies whose monopolistic grip over public services increases. It was a bonanza to all those so-called senior leaders in prisons and probation who jumped into the arms of the private sector having received offers they could not refuse and for those who took retirement, their pay-offs were lucrative and they are always on hand as consultants.
DeleteIt was a win for fanaticism over reason: all voices of reason argued that splitting the service was a bad idea.
In the midst of threats of compulsory redundancies, erosions in pay, and unions seemingly powerless to do what they are paid to do - protect and advance pay and conditions - it becomes difficult to see anything positive in TR.
There was going to be a reduction in clunky systems, but that's not going to happen anytime soon because the interface with MoJ systems, most notably NDelius can't work. Doesn't stop providers promising the earth to employees by way of tablets, but seems a long way off. Providers must be furious.
DeleteSounds like something Paul McDowell said when he visited some CRCS ie "I don't care if you think it's negative, tell me the positives". Or something the smug HR director from Sodexo would say, trying to tell us what wonderful employers Sodexo are because they don't run jails in places with the death penalty. Expect they still do the catering. It's in the 'change management handbook' - try and make people feel guilty by labelling them 'negative'. It's usually a tactic used by people so delusional they think this whole thing is a good idea.
DeleteAfter 25 years of republic service, I am going to lose my job at age 50. You tell ME the positives....
DeleteI am afraid there aren't any that amount to anything more than a rationalisation of theses actions. The partners we are being forced to work with have an unenviable record of failure and are recruiting staff at half the wages currently paid. They will get what they pay for and we will see the quality of the work plummet. I see no positives and, tragically, don't even rate iPads.
DeleteOnly someone who is not on the front line would think that the current situation has any merit in it...
DeleteLets look at it from the offender and the victim perspective - what are the benefits to them of TR? I foresee some probationers never getting off the merry go round of 12 months total supervision (-tive), but as 'hard to help' clients they will probably be parked with little input- (+itive). Chris Grayling promised accommodation on release from custody (+tive) but happening near me any time soon? - dont think so (-ative). Innovative ways of working were to be the hallmark (+tive) but in my area we are still mired in the old ways with several additional beaurocratic layers to boot (-tive). The splitting away of the Court and removal of the court officer function from CRC PO's means court reports and updates for CRC clients are largely written by those who have never met the client, ever (-tive). Victims hope that justice is seen to be done and sentences properly 'served'. Reporting to probation has a punishment element in the loss of liberty for that time slot (+ive) but 'parked' clients and reporting kiosks reduce this element to farce (-tive). DV and victims of physical violence especially would like to know the perp will not hurt them or others again, however understaffing and the draining away of the skills base is resulting in designated programmes not being run at all within some Orders lifetime (happening as we speak) - (a MASSIVE -tive).
DeleteSo, overall TR good for the clients and/or victims. Nope sorry, dont think so...
Deb
Actually, Deb. If you read that back, all of the positives are rhetorical and the negatives are the reality. HE was and remains a fantasy used to allow the vultures access to public money. Now watch the offenders use it all up for them.
DeleteHE was TR - incorrect strikes!
DeleteIncorrect was auto correct. This could go on all day
DeleteAgreed 20:05, to a degree, but altho' rhetoric, it is still the rhetoric being pumped out even now by the new owners, in the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So, do the new owners believe their own hype?- Anon 12:25 seems to think they do, and that we should too. But didnt someone once say, you can put lipstick on a pig but.........?
DeleteDeb
Annon 12:25 dosen't see any positives in whats happening. Just asking the previous commentator to enlighten us all because- I don't see any.
DeleteYour all missing the point. This blog used to be a forum full of interesting views and perspective on probation and CJ issues. Now it appears to be a site for disgruntled colleagues and others to vent causing anxiety to others.I feel the forum is losing its way so I wanted to put a different spin / perspective on things!
DeleteThe implication of balance is that there is some relationship with a consensus view. If one party skews the debate massively in its own favour, the concept of balance is also skewed and polarisation takes place. I grew up with a Socialist/Capitalism debate but now Socialism is 'extremist'. What had happened here is corporate fascism and I will not debate its relative merits as to do so is to collude.
DeleteNo, you're missing the point. People can't give positives when there are none, unless you want us to make it up? There are no extra resources, case loads are sky high, impossible targets have been forced upon us and on top of that CRC staff are staring at the axe and waiting for it to fall. People are losing their livelihood's and you wonder why people are venting?! Maybe you could illuminate us with some positives of TR - I hope so cos I'd love to hear what they could possibly be?
DeleteOff topic, but there may be some information contained in this article that some may find relative to them, or food for thought at least.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/april/court-of-appeal-civil-servant-whose-job-was-outsourced-to-private-sector-could-not-retain-full-pension-rights/
More scare mongering I assume! Change the record.
Deletescare mongering, just good to keep an eye on whats going on
DeleteI wouldn't call it scaremongering but I wish sometimes that these 'off message' postings that simply include a URL address would go to the trouble of providing a synopsis. This particular issue on pensions is historic as subsequent legislation has amended the rules and thus removed the threat posed by outsourcing to public sector pensions – that is my reading of the article. Therefore, it may not have been intended to scare but I would suggest it was a superfluous posting.
DeleteA prison officer whose job was outsourced to a private contractor had "resigned" from her employment for the purposes of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), and so was not entitled to retire at a reduced age of 55, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
DeleteThe job of Annette Ellis, a prison officer at Birmingham Prison, had transferred from the public sector to private contractor G4S in 2011 under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations, which protect the rights of an employee if their employer is taken over by a new owner or the work that they provide is outsourced or brought back in house. The Court of Appeal found that the word "resignation" in the scheme rules included both voluntary and involuntary forms of termination of employment.
Lord Justice Vos said that it was important "understand the context" in which the scheme rules, which dated back to 1972, were drafted. "At that time, as both parties accepted, it is unlikely that transfers of undertakings from the public to the private sector were much in anyone's mind," he said.
"What must, however, have been in the draftsman's mind was the possibility that actions would be taken which would result in civil servants leaving the Civil Service both voluntarily and involuntarily ... [I]t makes business sense to think that the draftsman would have wanted to make provision somewhere for involuntary departures from Civil Service employment ... There is no reason in the rules to think that he was making provision for what should happen on dismissal or redundancy but not for any other kind of involuntary departure," he said.
The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgment by the High Court, which had "placed great emphasis on the normal meaning of 'resignation'", according to the judgment. "I do not think the normal meaning of the word 'resignation' provides any justification for ignoring the relatively clear words of the extended definition the draftsman has accorded to it," he said.
When the outsourcing in this case took place, Ellis was given the option of either preserving her existing pension rights within the PCSPS or transferring her benefits out of the scheme into the G4S pension scheme. She chose the first of these options so that she could retain her existing benefits, which included both a right to retire at 55 without a reduction in her pension provided that she was still working for the same employer and a right to 'double-count' each year of service for pension purposes after her first 20 years of service.
After the transfer took place, she was informed by the Cabinet Office and PCSPS scheme administrators that she would not be entitled to take her preserved pension until she turned 60. She complained to the Pensions Ombudsman, who rejected her complaint on the grounds that the scheme's definition of 'resignation' was "wider than that word is generally used to mean, as it includes any termination of service before pension age".
The Court of Appeal said that the ombudsman was "right to construe [the scheme rules] as he did". Staff who have been compulsorily transferred out of the public sector may now remain members of their public sector pension scheme after the transfer, following an update to the government's non-statutory 'Fair Deal' guidance in October 2013. Before this, private sector providers only had to guarantee outsourced employees with a "broadly comparable" pension scheme.
I don't think it's scaremongering, just information that some may do well to be aware of.
DeleteThe case may be historic, but the appeal court decision isn't, and may therefore impact on any existing legislation.
I for one am grateful for any information that may inform my own personal decision making.
I certainly do not take the article as being posted to scare people.
The law that was challenged by the case is historic because it has been amended. I don't see how it can therefore impact on 'existing legislation'. I just think it's a bit of a non-story, but others may not and that's fine by me.
DeleteDelirius is already programmed for electronic monitoring.
ReplyDeleteAny news of Working Links?
Yeah, and given the amount of time it takes IT to do anything, makes you wonder just how long TPTB knew this was going to happen and why NONE spoke up!!
DeleteSeems Napo and Unison have given up on pay. It an odd sense of priorities that mention of pay comes at the bottom of the latest blog by IL. No details, just an 'underwhelming' pay offer which is being recommended. By voting in favour of a derisory pay offer, what message is being sent by the union membership to government?
ReplyDeleteAll future hopes now on a new pay structure to be achieved through negotiations that may never happen and somewhat dependent on the complexion of the next government. Apparently it's an 'impossible bargaining climate'. What with Dean Rogers analogies about the pay ice age and now impossible climates, you would almost think that some deity sets wage levels. The membership should reject any offer, because until there is some resistive action, pay is going to fall and fall and regional pay will become the norm.
Excuse my limited understanding but what can unions do in private companies? Will they have as much of a role to play as in public services?
ReplyDeleteFuck it - its Easter. Chocolate, wine, choccy & wine bunnies, bit of churchy stuff with wine, walks in the fresh air,more wine, rental cottage in the country, boxes of wine. Bollox to Sodexo. Bollox to everything. Time for me, me ME!!!
ReplyDeleteEnjoy!
DeleteOoooh, too much enjoy... Chocolate headache & whiney winey wino brain... Now I've made it home I'll have to cancel Friday... Good. Is that why its called Good Friday?
Delete00:47 - I think the only reason people have been critical of the EVR profiteers is solely because of the "big hitters' who were given EVR & then offered new CRC roles which magically suited their profile. I would guess most are sympathetic towards the admin & other staff who had no choices and who, in the sad circumstances of the TR train crash, quite rightly received the enhanced package. I hope that makes sense?
what are Areas doing for RAR - there's nothing in our Area and isn't it the 1st May that it's all meant to commence? I have people on RARs but all i'm doing is giving supervision which is NOT a RAR. I have a horrible feeling they are going to turn us all into programme tutors.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Anon at 23.07
ReplyDeleteRAR started on 1st February - obviously it is only an issue if the courts make them.
that's the point - they are making them and we don't have any activities set up so it's still supervision. Nothing set up for TTG unless managers gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat - 1st May's round the corner!!!
DeleteComing through thick and fast now. What Pollock would introduce a RAR when to commence 01/02 when most funded projects are coming to an end and any local agreements with partners are out of window because of probation sell off, who yes that would the April fool himself.
DeleteThere's a misconception that everyone who took EVR was a big hitter. My friend was an admin assistant on 15hrs per week. Notwithstanding that, a lot of 'big hitters' who were cowardly and servile, knew that they were fucked and took the money. They all fed the Grayling crocodile and hoped they wouldn't get eaten. That was our leadership.
ReplyDeleteNot a misconception, at least not in my CRC. The only EVRs taken so far have been at the uppermost layer. Now the truth is out, that a third of remaining staff must go, Sodexo are disputing their obligation to offer EVR.
DeleteHmm. In Northumbria only three of the 11 were senior managers. I certainly wasn't, and I know that my payment was 10% of that of one of the senior managers (give or take).
DeleteSt Giles will be running TTG in Wales. Interviewing for a Team Manager this Wed. Tough for those unable to attend as StG won't reschedule, only the 1 interview day. Half term and Easter hols many people are away. Surely they haven't got someone in mind?
ReplyDelete