1. Has the normal process of NEC ratification and reporting of committee work been abandoned? And if so, why?
2. What has made the limited choices concerning the AGM so urgent that it appears to have taken priority over other important work, such as redundancy concerns for our members, especially in Sodexo?
3. Who authorised and agreed this survey, or which National Officer is taking the lead on this?
4. Exactly what is the justification for attempting to vary the AGM arrangements outside of asking the AGM itself? The AGM is the only place where such constitutional changes can be agreed. I understand it has long been known that the NEC has fought off previous reforms through motions at AGM.
5. In the AGM memo there is mention of costing efficiencies 4 times in 6 lines and one could be forgiven for thinking there may be a funding crisis. With reducing membership, 'check-off' to end and NPS cocking-up payments for at least 100 staff, isn't it time the leadership came clean about things?
6. Is the Napo Finance Sub Committee doing its job properly and can Napo afford its AGM in 2016, or not? Is there a concern that in 2016 there will be insufficient members or income to support its constitutional commitments to members?
7. How much did the Judicial Review actually end up costing Napo, what were the legal costs and why has there not been full publication of these details is before being required at AGM 2015?
8. In the Napo news in April Ian Lawrence reports that Napo HQ staff will all have new role opportunities and that all jobs are apparently safe. How can he say that if membership income is in reduction? There is still a full team at Chivalry Road, but leadership seems poor and not much seems to be happening, apart from taking over the National Reps roles in order to save costs and arguably reduce representation effectiveness.
9. Napo's ability to represent members properly at local level seems significantly reduced. How is Napo to overcome the issue of ensuring representation of members is met in the CRC's or NPS or is it looking to potentially drop the representation and membership involved with multi employers?
10. Napo recognition is in jeopardy in CRC's if membership falls below 51% of those employed. Have the figures been collated in order to understand the extent of the issue and efforts made to ensure branches are aware in order to protect the recognition rights in those areas? If not, why not?
They are good questions. Look forward to seeing the variety of answers.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, just heard Tim Laughton MP on R4 playing a Tory blinder, telling the person who represents ex-pat Poles in the UK that he ought to be recommending educated Poles should return to Poland because Poland needs them, rather than encouraging them to come to the UK to take jobs "far below their qualifications". Arrogant Tory ponce. Why not just say "go home, johnski foreigner"?
The Tories are back - and how!!!
I bet we see no answers from NAPO.
DeleteThere is a narrative that Polish = educated and hardworking, whilst British = lazy. Strange how Poland was and is an economic backwater then. Couldn't have just all been about the fat cats lowering wages using accession countries to tap cheap labour?. Yes it could. In fact all those new jobs went to migrants (I don't blame them for bettering themselves) but the coalition could have achieved full employment. Instead they went for a fast buck and we have a generation branded as lazy and feckless because their benefits pay more than a migrant will work for. The migrants will soon wise up. As Peter Cook would have said 'this is no way to run a fucking ballroom!'.
Delete8.09 stick to the point of discussion crown!
DeleteThe coalition government allowed UK emp agencies to source and recruit E European workers with promises of jobs in the UK. This was regardless of if they could speak English or not. This is causing problems for those who don't speak English because once jobs are lost they cannot get benefits and resort to crime. Travelodge is one company that recruited this way.
DeleteI believe Mr Andrew Sell-us-off has retained his probation minister brief.
ReplyDeleteAll seem quite reasonable questions. Sometimes it helps to make decisions with details to hand. On the reformatting of the AGM, it's asserted there will be savings. What will these savings be, as presumably somone has done the sums? The costs of the former GS and the judicial review, again, should be published. The Napo leadership repeatedly refers to this 'member-led' union, but aren't you 'leading' in ignorance if you are unenlightened by information that the leadership know but the membership don't know.
ReplyDeleteWork-related stress has been mentioned in this blog many times, but according to the May edition of Napo News, only nine branches submitted returns to a national survey. I think this low response rate is saying less about the prevalence of stress, but possibly much about the ability of branches to cope with demands and diminishing resources.
Frankly, NAPO has been fucked for money for years. The large influx of members in the late seventies has been retiring and they haven't been able to recruit enough people to replace them. They could've dug themselves out a bit by selling chivalry road a couple of years ago but refused to countenance siting hq away from London to save money. The fundamental problem however is the political naivete of the membership and the elected leaders. I've seen it at NEC over the probation institute. Some of us argued that it was a front to provide false credibility to TR. The prevalent view however was that NAPO should get involved so it could be influenced. There was never any chance of that as the "even handed" academics were always going to run it and fail miserably to support a politicized agenda. The elected leadership have consistently been weak and too willing to prioritise the professional association priorities over being a trade union. The membership are also responsible. Even in the face of TR the majority were apathetic and unwilling to act. Look at the ballot turnout and solidity of the last strike. It was pathetic. JR was a sideshow at best. The "secret" legal advice from the beginning was that it was a cripplingly expensive bet with a poor chance of success. Therein lies another problem. Yvonne Pattinson commented somewhere the other day that they couldn't say anything at the moment about what they're doing to oppose the pay offer. They couldn't say anything about Ledger's pay off. They couldn't say anything about plans for JR. Everything appears cloak and dagger and no one is held to account. NEC and the elected leadership are weak and ineffectual. IL has a serious image problem and peddles the "punching above our weight" line when it's clearly nonsense. The membership with a few notable exceptions are unwilling to take part and NAPO is skint and unwilling to take the tough decisions it needs to take in order to save itself. I left a year ago after ten years of activism and the sky hasn't fallen down. If you're in NPS join the PCS. They have a strong record of politicized activism and will fight the Tory attacks on public sector trade unionism with vigour. If you're in CRC then I fear that you're fucked whatever representation you choose. Whatever happens you've seen what the coalition did with supposed liberal brakes on. Now see what an unashamedly right wing government will do to the remainder of the public sector. You can't afford professionally, financially or morally to stand by and watch but, as usual, the silent majority will do so lending credibility to Cameron and Gove. Then they'll snipe from the sidelines about how their union(s) let them down when they did little or nothing. Rant over now before I get started on UNISON and the Trust chiefs and chairs. Duplicitous arseholes the lot of them. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments resonate all too well. On the pay claim, they are doing something, but cannot say what it is... So many times , we have tolerated Napo working behind the scenes on behalf of members, promising to get back on this or that topic – but never doing so. The cloak of secrecy is a means to avoid accountability and avoid action. There is a patronising arrogance to some of Napo's 'positioning' on issues which often reeks of insincerity. It's Animal Farm writ large. Always it's a self-inflated elite that thinks it knows better. Of course, the majority of union members have shown themselves to have less fervent than Orwell's farmyard animals and this makes it so much easier for the leadership of Napo to live out their illusions undisturbed.
DeleteUnison is striking and Napo on the 11th June and IL tells us that Napo will be reviewing its position on the 19th June. As a West End farce this would be funny, but as an example of two unions working together, it's tragic stuff. From the grassroots perspective this is ridiculous and once again we will see members of one union crossing the picket lines of another union. These situations don't only damage workplace efforts to build solidarity, they increase cynicism towards trade unionism, because what is being witnessed is trade unionism as circus. And those in the upper echelons of Napo and Unison know this. And, like Greek Gods, they are playing with their members!
Just to clarify that poor sentence: 'Unison is striking on the 11th June and IL tells us that Napo will be reviewing its position on the 19th June.'
DeleteI agree its a mess and the truth is hidden by NAPO the co chairs are just the new complicit propping up a failed and losing GS.
ReplyDeleteIf we have no chance in the future under Tories we have even less under Ian Lawrence. His image is not the bulk of his problem but lack of intellect for the role and what probation was and should have been. For him it is time to leave with dignity or will he force a membership revolt. If CRC members are to be lost the income will destroy both sides of NAPO NPS CRC we had better insist on accountability but the NEC are pathetic as a group. They have too many excusers in the forum and they act like members of a certain Party mid 40s the moment capable people speak out.
These seem good & vital questions - might they best be asked via a branch meeting so that appropriate motions to the NEC can be put to the branch meeting(s), if the answers are not forthcoming at the meeting from the representatives that are available?
ReplyDeleteIt seems a good idea to have these questions on the published Branch Meeting Agenda, so that there are unlikely to be constitutional difficulties in immediately proposing appropriate motions to the NEC, as all the members would have known in advance that the issues are on the agenda and consequently Branch Motions to the NEC (for example) might be the outcome.
It is nonetheless an excellent idea to use social media, to pursue the general matters and also to facilitate different branches being presented with the same motions for the NEC, which may assist the NEC in resolving the matters promptly.
Yesterday was the Queen's Speech debate in the House of Commons focusing on Home Affairs and Justice Matters.
ReplyDeleteI listened to most of it - particularly the closing speech from Gove - he seems to operate very differently to Grayling and has a powerful intellect - I was most impressed by the way his summing up speech seemed to succinctly reference an aspect of each of the 30 odd back bencher contributions. He acknowledged a problem with prisons - and seemed to see the priority to be introducing more opportunities for rehabilitation activity into the custodial part of sentences but did not hint at any details.
As far as I good tell the word probation was not mentioned once in the whole day's debate - which suggests that probation is likely to be very poorly served by the Opposition MPs apart from the few faithful advocates like John McDonnell - I suspect Elfyn Llwyd will turn out to be a great loss to probation - maybe he will be back in Parliament in the House of Lords?
The SNP were very impressive especially in securing the adjournment debate on Trident so quickly - Salmond is a superb parliamentary performer - the Tories left their new Minister deal with the SNP almost single handedly, she did OK but this parliament is going to have a lot from Scotland, though sadly not concerning Probation as Scottish Probation issues are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150528/debtext/150528-0001.htm#15052828000003
The problem with unions today, as with charities, is that those at the top take up their possition from a basis of what they can get rather then what they can achieve for the good of the whole.
ReplyDeleteCharity EXECs are very well paid, whilst those that do the real work shaking the tins do so on a voluntary basis. Union EXECs are also very well paid whilst the local reps do the slogging.
The social ethics and sentiments that make people want to do what they do further down the food chain is no longer shared by those at the top table. For them it's business and making sure they keep their place so they can achieve their lucrative rewards.
How many of the NAPO EXEC would be there if the financial rewards were not so great? The same question can be asked of other unions and charities too. Driven by a passionate belief in the cause? Or driven by the wage packet?
In some ways I think this next 5 years of Tory rule may change those attitudes for the better. People will have to become more passionate about the 'cause' because the Tories are going to show all just how bad things can get if you don't stand up and be counted for your beliefs.
There's a very interesting article here that I read on "the void" yesterday,
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/
and it seems to me it's really the only way things can go.
'Getafix'
Sorry about deleting comments off topic, but this is just too important for digressions today. I hope you will understand and I thank you in advance for your forebearance.
ReplyDeleteIt was entirely on topic - Carswell is part of the Opposition in Parliament and probably as good as the rest and the story linked was about him.
DeleteProbation Folk need to learn how best to use parliament or they will be ina worse predicament. Just see how the SNP did it yesterday over Nuclear weapons - a master class - Delete Away1
With respect it was off topic Andrew.
DeleteAgreed with Jim. Andrew your a plonker!!
DeleteAnd you must be 15:11?
DeleteAny of us could take a wild guess at answering most of these questions and would probably be spot on. I know there are one or two Napo exec and confidants that post here 'anonymously' on occasion. Not good enough though. Time for Napo to come clean, acknowledge this blog, answer the difficult questions and be honest with the membership.
ReplyDeleteToo right !!
DeleteWith reference to the 'cost' of JR, I assume the question is asked with pounds spent in mind?
ReplyDeleteHowever, more fundamental, is the real 'cost' of JR not to be found in the agreements and promises made between NOPO and Grayling?
At the time the plug was pulled on JR court restrictions did not allow for the publication of the negotiations reached and promises made by Grayling to be published.
We are still in the dark about these. When can we know what promises were extracted from Grayling that were acceptable enough to withdraw from JR?
These promises, obtained by NAPO, were achieved not at the bequest of the membership, nor do the membership to date have any knowledge of the content of those promises.
Surely now we should have the right to know?
Detailing the monetry cost of JR may be very difficult for NAPO. If I recall correctly, there was at the time some contradiction between union and MoJ regarding who paid what. NAPO claimed they only had to pay a partial amount and the MoJ press release claimed NAPO had to pay the full cost.
It would be embarressing now for NAPO to have to admit that infact they were liable for the whole lot- not only because they've previously claimed otherwise, but to my mind would also raise serious questions about the validity of the promises they claimed to have extracted from Grayling.
Ian Lawrence is the leader of NAPO. We elected him so we stick by him. He has a proven track record and works tiresly for members. Some things are confidential. Some things he can not talk about. Some things NAPO can't talk about despite NAPO wanting too. Lay off NAPO. We need NAPO. I think we get value for money from NAPO NAPO is cheaper than PSS and Unison
ReplyDeleteNo Ian Lawrence is an elected general secretary of napo . He is certainly well short of leadership skills !
DeleteWhat you should understand is that if the membership demand answers they are entitled. The so coalled leadership is to be held to account through the NEC. They need to realise their growing unpopularity within NAPO membership for being so weak .
Everything has been lost . Nothing much left defend let alone win. We are divided to be conquered and now sadly divided we are ruled.
Yet still to come we are now waiting for the final loss of all terms and conditions. Ian Lawrence will probably make them a cup of tea as they tear up the national terms or whats left of them.
Well done ! Its not all his fault though NAPO elected him through apathy. Stop defending the indefensible lets work to a fresh start. Oust the General secretary if we have to but lets have the debate by having answers ! Truthful ones please !
if NAPO don't come clean and speak out, answer the questions, its dead and buried. I will not sign a dd mandate for fees because I don't feel represented, I don't feel mbers are been given answers and quite frankly I am tired of the same cloak and dagger politics we critise the government for. As a taxpayer I expect government and every minister and mp to be accountable, as a napo member I expect the same from napo HQ exec and NEC. Don't bore me with media type spin, tell the bloody truth or say goodbye to our union
DeleteSorry Anon 15:33, 'Some things NAPO cant talk about despite wanting to' - well lets start with the finances. I have sat through many a Conference listening to the floor get exasperated with the few Delegates who repeatedly (and legitimately) ask for confirmation of one financial point or another, only to be constantly fobbed off and treated as if they are a) a nuisance and/or b) a bit thick because they are not willing to leave it all to the Treasurer who will tell us what he he thinks we ought to hear rather than provide full and comprehensive financial detail as requested. If the detail was provided up front to all - not 'promised' to the enquirer by email later (as has happened on occasion) less Conference time would be wasted for a start. We are fully entitled to question NAPO for how our subs are spent. I for one am waiting to see if the full cost of JR is shown (as it should be) in the annual accounts. I can see nothing 'secret' about this info. We voted for JR, we should know how much it cost us financially.
DeleteDeb
PS NAPO is definitely not cheaper than UNISON for a PO!
Sorry meant 15:53
Delete'Some things NAPO cant talk about despite wanting to' ???
DeleteThey don't actually tell the membership anything at all. They decide whats to be done, why it's to be done, and how it's to be done. They even decide what outcomes are acceptable for the people they're ment to be representing without any form of consultation with it's membership so no-one can disagree with what they're doing or how they're doing it.
And to add insult to injury, they tell everyone they can't disclose what they're doing or how they're doing it!
What other organisation or business would be afforded that level of freedom with it's members or customers?
This is good old Blighty-not North Korea, and NAPO are dealing with probation matters not matters of national security!
For sure you don't want your enemies to know what your doing, and sometimes the law demands you watch what you say, but tell us bloody something sometime.
22:36 well what can we expect I read here that the treasurer Mr Stockeld despite being smart enough to avoid any responsibility has landed a place in the PI . Does this mean he is getting time off and rinsing Napo funding to attend PI meetings no doubt ? I wonder how much the PI has cost members and then ask for that money back to help properly fund a member led AGM. As Deb points out it will be a secret or something and well e mail. Of course the questions are raised by members for the benefit of AGM . No private correspondence Treasurer just tell us how you have blown the accounts.
DeleteYes, IL is the leader of Napo. He was elected on a turnout of 19.6%. Not the strongest of mandates but he can't be blamed for member apathy. But all this stuff about Napo having to operate under the radar and observe omerta on various subjects is a perverse defence of the status quo. Napo behaves sometimes like any group with vested interests – they shy away from accountability. It is a great shame that freedom of information does not extend to trade unions.
DeleteOn the AGM format there is haste to agree a new format. On the Unison strike, Napo will discuss it after it has happened. There is nothing – either confidential or that threatens national security – that stops Napo from setting out it views on the Unison strike. Napo members will have to cross Unison picket lines to go to work, just as Unison previously crossed Napo pickets. Chaos!
Nonsense if questioned properly the General has to reply and accountable to the NEC. They constantly fail to form the right questions. In relation to leadership I know that we elect Chairs who are questionable in terms of skills for the role but they are the elected lay officials who arse supposed to lead on strategy and member interest. The tail has been wagging the napo dog for many years because the chairs do not understand the role. The last two GS have had ridiculous freedom and the membership freely on the elected officers to sort things out. The trouble is they do not have the either the ability or the confidence to deal with a Bull.
DeleteSorry that's rely and are not arse but it fits in a perverse way.
DeleteA full time PO pays £6.66 monthly to PCS that's a lot less than Napo !!
DeleteI'd say there is more chance of Sepp Blatter being held to account.
ReplyDeleteAfter serving as a branch rep for years and holding various branch roles, I did some regional work and then thought I had something to contribute on a national committee. Duly 'elected' I travelled to London ( giving myself a fourteen hour day) and frankly struggled to come to terms with it all.
ReplyDeleteI found an established group of people used to working together, fair enough, but the down side was the shock of feeling I was there to make up the numbers. Yes, there are branches of differing sizes, but really each committee members should have value. I thought it was morally dishonest to attend and not represent members views or contribute.
There was often the 'theatre' of national officers and officials sweeping in late because they had been dealing with 'important stuff' they could not share yet, but keeping us waiting when we had 3/4/5 hour journeys to get there. Then being late, we had to rush through the agenda restricting discussion and in my view conflicting with basic principles of democracy. I found it interesting to see that several newbies eventually withdrew, all had something different to contribute and were not insiders. There was a really interesting power dynamic and I found it fascinating to observe just who was worthy of time from the top table lot. I decided such shenanigans were not worthy of my time and the effort I put in to read the papers in advance and consult with my branch. Someone posted earlier about Animal Farm, they were absolutely right!
Anon 18:30
Delete"There was often the 'theatre' of national officers and officials sweeping in late because they had been dealing with 'important stuff' they could not share yet, but keeping us waiting when we had 3/4/5 hour journeys to get there. Then being late, we had to rush through the agenda restricting discussion and in my view conflicting with basic principles of democracy."
I've privately heard of this behaviour many, many times before, so thanks for confirming it in public.
Maybe this is why people I trusted, respected and voted for didn't live up to expectations. Well done for speaking out publicly whoever you are. Personally I don't feel the AGM proposed changes are to do with cost, but an opportunity to restrict the membership networking that prior to the last AGM caused serious concerns for the HQ exec
DeleteYou are probably right 22:38. I recall prior to the suspensions of 3 reps on the NEC we could e mail all the other nec reps on the e mail, as a matter of course. I am not an NEC rep but have had conversations that demonstrate after the suspensions fiasco the e mail between NEC members became restricted by NAPO and then became a thing of the past. It was claimed to be a data protection issue but we all know this is nonsense. Anyway, it is still the same NAPO leadership who had posters on the NAPO forum censored and removed. The removal makes the forum and the management of it untrustworthy. That is why this sight provides anon for comment and protection. The ordinary get a voice.
DeleteI think we should do the same with the General Secretary. Censure at AGM and a vote of confidence . I expect he will lose after the abysmal record.
what did the NW NPS doc say about office closures - which ones and where will staff be going to?
ReplyDelete