Dear Colleague,
News on the NNC disputes in South Yorkshire and Northumbria CRCs relating to the Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy (EVR) terms
Background
Despite recent announcements by some of the Sodexo owned CRCs, national discussions with Sodexo and the trade unions over the company's intentions to launch an enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme (EVR) across their contract areas have taken place on a 'without prejudice' basis. The reason for this is that Napo must act in the best interests of all our members and we are therefore insisting that Sodexo respect and understand that the National Agreement on Staff Transfers and Protections must be the vehicle that governs any attempt by an employer to vary nationally agreed terms and conditions. This means that such issues must be discussed as part of the national collective bargaining machinery, in this instance the National Negotiating Council (NNC).
The protections contained in the National Agreement on Staff Transfers and Protections prior to the share sale were (and still are) underwritten by the Secretary of State for Justice. These were designed to prevent a ‘free for all’ situation developing on key industrial issues, such as the terms of the EVR scheme.
Where are we now?
The NNC Joint Secretaries have considered two disputes that were referred to them by the trade unions in South Yorkshire and Northumbria CRC. These followed attempts by the two CRCs to vary the nationally agreed EVR terms. The Joint Secretaries have now made a determination (as attached), which makes it clear that this should not have occurred. The NNC has agreed that upon receipt of a formal proposal to vary the EVR terms, urgent consideration will be given to creating a mechanism for further discussions to take place between the unions and the CRC's whilst at the same time providing an opportunity for the trade unions to urgently consult with their members.
Napo, along with Unison and GMB, believe that on the basis of the information provided by Sodexo, their proposals for an EVR scheme still requires further clarification before they can be issued to CRC staff. Work is currently ongoing to ensure that the requisite information will be available to members so that they can take an informed view of the situation. At the moment the unions believe that the EVR proposals fall well short of the terms available under the National Agreement, and the unions are also questioning the rationale and justification behind the proposed 600 job cuts across the Sodexo owned CRCs.
Napo and our sister trade unions fully appreciate the uncertainty that many members are facing about their future employment and the nature of the EVR offer that will be on the table. We have made it clear to all of the parties that we want to engage on this hugely important issue but such engagement can only take place under the auspices of the NNC.
The Joint Secretaries have now stated in their determination very clearly it is not open for a CRC to seek to amend an NNC national agreement at local level. This decision in relation to South Yorkshire and Northumbria applies equally to the four other Sodexo-owned CRCs, which are also covered by the NNC.
Napo, UNISON and GMB colleagues will be in further discussions with Sodexo tomorrow morning. We hope this discussion will lead to an agreed way forward in line with the attached NNC Joint Secretaries’ decision.
Branches and representatives are advised not to enter into negotiation on EVR with their CRC, and advice issued previously that members do not enter into any individual negotiation with their CRC in relation to redundancy terms remains in force.
Napo hopes that the parties will now enter into meaningful discussions and it is important that Napo members demonstrate their resolve, firstly by supporting your unions position that this issue is one that must be negotiated through the established National Collective Bargaining arrangements, and secondly that you make every effort to attend members workplace meetings on which more news will follow from your Napo reps.
More news will be issued at the earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely
IAN LAWRENCE
General Secretary
RANJIT SINGH
National Official
YVONNE PATTISON
National Co-Chair
Latest from Cumbria and Lancashire. So the 16th July it is then!!!
ReplyDelete"You will be aware from my communication on 22 June that Sodexo recently presented a formal voluntary exit package for staff to the recognised national unions. This offer, made on our behalf, was presented with the request that the unions submit their responses by 30 June 2015.
As a result of those discussions, and the recent NNC Circular (4/2015), Sodexo has now formally written to the NNC Employers’ side Joint Secretary to outline the proposed offer and request that the recognised trade unions consult with their members on the package at the earliest opportunity. We have made it clear in our correspondence that we will be formally publishing our offer on the 16th July, and that this date is non-negotiable, as you need to make informed choices and therefore would expect the unions to consult with their members at the earliest, once it is published.
I know that many of you may feel disappointed that we are unable to share the details of the proposed package with you at this moment in time, and that you are anxious to know what the offer and required staffing numbers may mean for you.
I will keep you updated throughout this process and I would like to reassure you that we are all committed to reaching as prompt a conclusion as possible, without undermining the current collective bargaining process.
Thank you for your patience.
Kind regards"
It seems the framework agreement was written on water. The NNC joint secretaries have affirmed the framework agreement – what else could they do? - but tell Sodexo that it you want to change it, please go through the proper channels. Sodexo says, if you can suspend your disbelief, it is committed to collective bargaining until the 16th July. This is gunboat diplomacy and, as we can plainly see, no previous agreement is going to bind the freedom of Sodexo to do whatever they want. You cannot negotiate an agreement from a position of weakness and we can see that the framework agreement was nothing more than an expedient to formalise the split, The unions sold it on 'staff protections' but Sodexo et al are the asset stripping artists quite unperturbed by an agreement with weak unions.
DeleteWhere is the NNC Circular (4/2015) quoted in post Anon 13:21 I wonder?
DeleteResponse to Anon 3 July 2015 at 18:00 -
DeleteI have searched as best as possible and cannot locate the current NNC publications on the Internet via Napo, the admittedly old Probation Association Website or the Ministry of Justice - maybe it has been withheld?
Neither can I locate on the Napo website - members section - what Jim quotes in his blog here, which reads like a Napo Branch Circular Memorandum and I note that unusually Jim has not provided a link to the original - I doubt he was sent a private copy by Napo.
I have posted an enquiry about both on Napo, HQs Facebook page thus, but will not expect any response until before Monday at the earliest: -
https://www.facebook.com/NapoHQ/posts/962157777148737?comment_id=965711033460078&offset=0&total_comments=1&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R%22}
https://www.napo.org.uk/nnc-handbook-and-circulars is the link to NNC handbook Andrew but like you I've not found the NNC "determination" anywhere
DeleteDoes anyone know what Northumbria and South Yorkshire have tried to change? What parts of the EVR agreement did they try to change?
ReplyDeleteThey want to offer EVR on lower financial terms than set out in the agreement. We don't yet know how much lower, but I hope the unions
Deleteseize the initiative rather then waiting for Sodexo to call the shots.
The amount of money people would get. They want to fob you off with a pittance! Interestingly, this afternoon, my CEO in Norfolk and Suffolk sent EXACTLY the same letter as Cumbria and Lancs. Methinks our CEOs are merely puppets?
ReplyDeleteyep, must be like an episode of thunderbirds at their joint meetings but then again that is an insult to TB, after all it was harder to see their strings being pulled.
DeleteThe chief from Norfolk and Suffolk is leaving his post too! He won't tell his staff until he has secured his golden hanshake and the staff's demise ... by the way, please don't tell anyone as he wants to keep it secret....
DeleteIt was a Sodexo letter sent to all 6 CRCs it seems with just the CEOs name different. The offer, as it stood 8 days ago, was 2 weeks for every year with a max of 15 years - 30 weeks max then OR if you're over 55 early access to pension but crucially not both
ReplyDeleteWe're definitely through the looking glass folks! today at our local crown court a guy appeared yesterday for bob & sentenced to 8 days custody (so he served 1day ) but given cond bail to attend court on mon for the index offence -yes youve guessed it he's on ora pss for 12months!! you couldn't make it up....
DeleteSpeculation? gossip? fact? It is about time the unions and sodexo stopped pissing us about and told us what the bloody offer is! Absolutely farcical my friends: they are like kids in the school playground bickering over who gets to go first and meanwhile your staff / members are treated like morons. Get a grip peeps cause at the moment you are all an embarrassment.
Delete16:46 I could not agree more. Lets just get on with it.
DeleteLook, the offer to allow over 55s to access their pensions is the plus in this deal, everything else is lower than EVR. The employer then gets rid of the expensive members of staff writing some considerable cost off initially but recovering over time by considerable saving in salary. More likely too that further salary costs can be driven down.
ReplyDeleteNot helpful if you are under 55 with long service and want to go...shafted again. Negotiate myself me thinks as I am still a cheaper option that any over 55.
DeleteAny one able to copy the "determination" cited above in blog as an attachment? This info has not been circulated to Napo members in CL CRC today to my knowledge.
DeleteGrrr why are we not just saying NO ; if there is a National agreement saying that we're entitled to EVR are they not legally bound to offer it??
DeleteThis is not the gift you indicate. In actual fact it makes voluntary departure less attractive than compulsory redundancy for over 55s, for a compulsory exit would trigger the pension release AND a statutory minimum redundancy payment.
DeleteWhilst it is good that 'Sod-Off' are officially obliged to go via NNC if they want to tinker with T&C. I am concerned by the language in the bulletin. What is there to negotiate? The terms of EVR were set out in the transfer agreement, adoption of which was part and parcel of the sale of the CRCs. Its not like Sod-Off are a small enterprise which can't afford to pay up. If we give an inch on this then they will come back for pay, holidays and the rest
ReplyDeleteSodexo are going to put their offer of EVR on reduced terms out – they say on the 16th July at latest. And it will be accepted by some if they wish to go voluntarily. This will effectively bypass the need to deal with the unions via a collective agreement, as it will be between Sodexo and individual employees. The overhanging threat will be that if insufficient numbers apply for their version of EVR, the next step will be compulsory redundancies – without any enhanced payoffs.
ReplyDeleteNapo is asking its members to demonstrate 'resolve' by supporting the union's position. In other words, don't break ranks and do individual deals with Sodexo. This is another opportunity for Napo members to show some solidarity and resist this cynical exercise by Sodexo. I am sure Sodexo calculate that such solidarity is wishful thinking and they can manipulate and appeal to the self-interest of individuals.
Sodexo does not want to be encumbered with collective bargaining. They want to break it and this cut-price EVR is their first challenge to collective bargaining. If they succeed with this it will save them money – but the bigger prize will be that they will have shown that union collective bargaining rights count for nothing. And thus emboldened they will then start to reduce terms and conditions, irrespective of any agreements. They will know that the union's solidarity is non-existent and thus individuals can be kicked around at leisure. And if Napo members don't see these threats to their livelihood as clear and present dangers, then they are sleepwalking into the abyss. If this generation of union members do not make a collective stand, then they not only deserve all they get but they are leaving a pathetic legacy for future probation staff. A reduced EVR may seem bad now but if Sodexo are allowed a free-for-all, these current times will seem like the good old days!
I agree with a lot of what you say and I am thus perplexed as to why the unions are not releasing the info about the second rate offer being made. How can a momentum of NO MORE be gained when we are being kept in the dark. Sadly our leaderships seem to have little faith in its own memberships; if you want us to fight then you have to give us the bad news so we can build a resolve. The inspiration is missing.
DeleteTo anon 21.47 I'm guessing here but suppose Unions can't produce the offer as they are not the ones making it?
DeleteOn this blog, many times the unions have been criticised. Well now it really is time for the membership to be counted and not to accept anything outside of the agreement already made.
ReplyDeleteprobably well too late for solidarity too many have left napo now and no one really supports the useless crew they have become. Nepotism and cronyisms look familiar buzzwords for the NAPO leadership. No need to look for clues does anyone really think the Public relations job was seriously filled by the best applicant ?
DeleteScary scary scary - but please can someoe (anyone) explain how they are allowed to do this. We were told that any redundancies were going to be at the EVR rate and that there was money put aside for this. Maybe I'm being thick but surely anyone offered these reduced rates should be able to challenge it and win. The promises are on paper and I can't see how they wouldn't stand up in court - and I can't understand why the unions aren't offering to back up every single member offered this tosh. But as I said maybe I'm just thick....
ReplyDeleteI have just written a long comment in support of 20 13, and highlighting the corruption of Sodexo, with ref to damning info on the 'Sodexo- Sourcewatch' website, and others on the same page.
DeleteI don't have the energy or time to rewrite, suffice to say that Sodexo is renowned for corruption in its business, poverty wages, aiding and abetting corruption in the prison system, denying workers rights, pulling out of contracts, breaking health and safety laws, and physically placing thousands of people at risk by knowingly providing cheap contaminated food to public services, including schools, on an international scale.
Where they have had to pay compen,, it has been due to the solidarity of its victims, and the public at large. Now that history is repeating itself, please support your unions in this fight of your lives.
And read 'Sodexo- Sourcewatch'.
Oops, just come back onto the blog and have noticed that I missed out explaining that what I had written first time about Sodexo, in response to anon 2013, had mysteriously disappeared off page so I had to precis it again at 21 31.
DeleteYou might be interested to note that I successfully sued Sodexo for the loss of property from when I was at Bronzefield and won. They submitted no defence and didn't show up for the court hearing. May be worth bearing in ,mind should anyone decide to take Sodexo to court. Their track record in defending law suits is apparently pretty abysmal. If everyone sued them on an individual basis I bet Sodexo simply wouldn't defend any of the suits.
DeleteCan I once again quote Andrew Selous from 8 June 2015:
ReplyDelete"As part of the arrangements for the transfer of services from probation trusts to Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s), an enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme was put in place, in line with the terms of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections agreed with the probation Trade Unions, and funded by monies from the Modernisation Fund to support a sustainable reduction in resource requirements. An initial wave of redundancies was made in advance of the letting of the contracts for the CRCs, and the remaining monies were transferred to the CRCs on a pro rata basis to be used for the same purpose. While we have no plans to reclaim any monies allocated to CRCs from the Modernisation Fund, we have robust contract management arrangements in place to ensure that they are used for the purposes for which they were provided. Contract management teams are in place in each Contract Package Area to oversee each CRC operation."
So, I'd invite Mr Selous to step in & tell his contractor to play nicely or lose the contract. I'd ask the unions to stop pissing in the wind & make a stand, e.g by telling Sodexo to shove their offensive, derisory attempt at stealing our money. I'd ask members of any and all trade unions to reject any derisory scaremongering alternative to the nationally agreed EVR. It shouldn't matter if your CRC is saying the EVR isn't in the local agreement because there is a national agreement. Do not be bullied & frightened into accepting the first piss-poor offer.
DeleteSelous, Gove, Spurr, Allars, etc - are you going to let Sodexo embarrass you publicly by allowing them to steal from under the noses of your contract management teams more than half of the ring-fenced monies from the Modernisation Fund? Money that you have publicly stated was specifically allocated to meet the nationally agreed EVR "to support a sustainable reduction in resource requirements."
DeletePerhaps we should all request our MPs to ask this question in the House?
All zealous said was, 1) evr happened pre split, 2) a sum of money wad set aside to pay for it, 3) the balance left was given to the CRC's to pay for future redundancies and 4) eve terms were agreed under nnc pre split. He did not say that pre split evr terms had to be honoured. They won't be because at least 600 dispirited and browbeayen colleagues will bite sodexos hand off to get out with something because their offer will be time limited with the prospect of statutory minimum compulsory redundancy if they don't get the numbers. I take no pleasure in reminding all that what we predicted is now coming to pass. It will only get worse. Holidays and pay will be next. New recruits will be paid sweeties with 25 days leave creating a two tier workforce. They'll create a staff association and derecognise the unions and everyone will be fucked. I wish the people on the ground had the stomach for the fight and the unions had the leadership to unite them but they don't and the owners know it. Will the last person to leave the office please turn off the light.
DeleteSelous again on 2 July 2015:
Delete"Modernisation funding was allocated to the Ministry of Justice by HM Treasury in 2014/15 to bring about sustainable reductions in resource requirements across the Ministry. Some of this funding was made available for voluntary redundancies in Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Of this, £16.4m was spent on voluntary exit packages in 2014/15 and the remainder was allocated to CRCs on a pro-rata basis, based on their size and estimated future staffing requirements.
Each Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) is managed by a Contract Management Team (CMT), headed by a Senior Contract Manager and comprising staff with commercial, contract management and operational expertise to ensure a multi-disciplinary approach. The size of teams reflects the size of the contract being managed. While it is for CRC owners to implement and oversee redundancy schemes, CMTs are ensuring that CRC owners adhere to their contractual obligations in this area. CMTs are able to draw upon commercial, financial and legal expertise from within the wider Ministry in delivering this role."
But you have to look back to zealous in oct 2014 to see why sodexo & the crc management aren't bothered:
Delete"The National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections includes an enhanced national voluntary redundancy scheme which applies up to and including 31 March 2016. Decisions including agreement on applications for voluntary redundancy have to be made and agreed by 31 March 2015. The costs of all exits under this scheme will be met from the Department’s Modernisation Fund, which is used to support sustainable reductions in resource requirements."
However, seeing as Selous has acknowledged that sufficient funds have already been shared out to cover "sustainable reductions in resource requirement" then it must follow that the numbers of staff losses had already been agreed (by Sodexo + other CRC owners and the MoJ) before share sale, thus before March 2015. And given that Selous is speaking about such arrangements in October 2014 then, Mr Employment Lawyer, the EVR arrangements must surely be valid for voluntary leavers up until March 2016? And surely any delaying tactics by Sodexo, e.g. disputing the EVR package, cannot be allowed to prejudice the timescale of the March 2016 deadline, thereby depriving qualifying staff of their full EVR?
Or, the fucking government knew that the CRC sales would mean mass redundancies because it was built in to the contracts right from the start - and they were prepared to pay for it with Taxpayers' money. What does the Public Accounts Committee have to say about that, when Spurr, Brennan, Romeo etc tried to tell everyone it wouldn't cost anything extra? £10M+ in consultancy fees, £60M+ in redundancy payments, £hundreds of millions in wasted IT and loss if assets...
Dec2014, from the NAO report on Govt contract mgmt post-'tag gate':
Delete"the Government fails to recognise the value of contract management. The purpose of contract management is to use commercial mechanisms to improve services and reduce costs. Too often contract management has been seen as delivering the deal that was agreed when the contract was signed. This has meant that contract management has been seen as a way to avoid things going wrong, rather than unlocking value. Government needs to recognise that value is achieved over the
life of the contract. This means designing policies it has the capability to deliver, planning for the contract management stage earlier, and paying it more attention."
From the May 2014 Landscape Review:
Delete"Recommendation: The Ministry should set out how it intends to satisfy itself that the proposed payment mechanism is workable. As we recommended in our recent report on contracting out public services, the Ministry must include open book accounting arrangements and ensure that they are used effectively. We would also want the NAO to have full access to contractual information that is relevant to assuring Parliament that value for money is being served in these contracts.
The Ministry told us that it expected to make savings by creating a new Probation Service. However, the Committee will wish to return to an examination of the new arrangements to ensure they haven’t resulted in more bureaucracy and additional demands on managing offenders."
FROM FACEBOOK: -
ReplyDelete" News has reached us that Thames Valley CRC admin may be moved to a hub in Newcastle? Can anyone confirm? "
https://www.facebook.com/SaveProbation/posts/876906799024149
PRIVATE RESPONSE via a Locked Tweet: -
Delete" Yep, not a secret, announced to all staff. Being scoped now. Not sure MTC Novo really appreciate admins role fully? "
Certainlly don't appreciate the admin role. They are the oil that keep the cogs moving efficiently.
DeleteRrp and ingeus are looking to move majority of admin to birmingham
ReplyDeleteIgneous have given every one a fancy Dan smartphone with the promise of a tablet soon so they can do their own admin on the hoof after east mids euphamistically titled customer care centre opens in
ReplyDeleteDerby and most admin end up constructively dismissed. They'll be out of oasys by Xmas and the impossible labyrinth that is delius becomes ever more incomprehensible. To think only 18 months ago we were proud winners of the bqf gold medal and envied around the world for the quality of our service. Who'd copy us now?
We all know there going to cut so let's just on with it. IL take my money and get another job. It's only a job and there are plenty out there. That's business. That's all
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in the nps... Selous on 2 July:
ReplyDelete"The most recently available information on the unit costs of probation relates to 2012/13 and is published on the Gov.uk website at the following web location: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-and-probation-trusts-performance-statistics-201213
The published unit costs of pre-sentence reports are calculated by dividing the fully-apportioned cost to NOMS by the volumes of the three separate types of report: Standard Delivery Report (SDR), Fast Delivery Report (FDR) and oral report. They exclude the time spent by probation staff in court whilst the report is being delivered and considered, as this cannot be separately identified.
The unit costs of SDRs and FDRs for 2012-13 are as follows:
SDR: £430
FDR: £150
The publication of probation trust unit costs was suspended whilst the probation service restructured, but work is underway to develop unit costs for the National Probation Service and we will seek to publish this information once it is sufficiently robust."
£430 for an SDR !!!!! just proves how little they know ..how little they value and that the move to remove the role of reports pre sentence is getting up speed.
ReplyDeleteFully apportioned . That is the total cost of that unit say an office , cost out everything including facilities management and non front line staff too and divide that total cost by the number of reports simples! But there is a shit load more things staff do in that time so not really an accurate reflection. The cost for NPS should fall as they will have fewer units and more reports, so they will be declared ' more efficient '. AND this is a quantity cost per report not a quality!
ReplyDeleteCommons debate, March 2014:
ReplyDeleteNicholas Dakin: "My constituents cannot understand why the Government are seeking to use unproven, untested people to carry out this work when Humberside probation service does such a good job. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that he is not taking a risk with public safety?"
Grayling: "The guarantee I can give the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that we are not removing the people who are doing the job at the moment. We are freeing them operationally to innovate, and we are bringing new skills to the task of rehabilitating offenders."
Presumably "... freeing them operationally to innovate..." is a euphemism for agreeing contracts with the sweetener of £80M of Modernisation Fund (Taxpayer) money to subsidise global companies whilst they make hundreds of existing staff redundant.
Thats the essence of the worthless "guarantee" from C S Grayling.
Why don't NAPO keep this forum regularly updated
ReplyDeleteNapo think this blog/forum smells like a full nappy, so they keep well away from it...
Delete... Like a negligent parent, perhaps?
Because Napo Rendon Robinson and cronies suspend people who speak out and spineless NEC allowed it. The situation will continue as long as the nec remain pathetic and weak. Censorship on the napo site led many people away from the union and napo learn nothing because the officers have no collective memory or recall when it suits them. Wait until September and the members lose our EVR rates then who will submit a standard bank transfer for memberships fee. Not many I wont be.
DeleteThank you 17.32 perhaps you could expand on who has been suspended because as usual this information is not in the public domain? But on your point about the weak NEC, it seems every area of decision making in NAPO is corrupt and blighted by a few dominant figures who Weald power and control over us all, for the good of their own egos it would seem. survival is fragile and a merger with other unions could be imminent. Maybe this is what is required to kick the chosen few into touch. Scrutiny and accountability is healthy and inevitable in those circumstances. Mr Lawrence and his sidekicks won't be milking their meal tickets for much longer at the members expense. Bring it on
DeleteUninformed bulls***.
DeleteNapo have their own site and why would they post here ? Odd though ? Some Vice chairs have posted here a few times I think and claim their title and then say its personal that is Bulls*** 8:57.
DeleteMike McC has posted here sensibly a few times so be fair to him at least.
To anon 17.32 from my recollections of the NEC at the time 3 NEC reps were temporarily suspended because they circulated confidential info about a Napo employee to people who were not NEC reps which breaches terms of NEC reps responsibilities as employers. There was a lot of debate about it . The 3 apologised and were back for next NEC meet as I recall. I know this provokes a range of opinion but as employer you can't discuss personal info about yr staff without safeguards in similar way as we would be up in arms if NPS/CRC CEO/HR bods etc sent out confidential info about us.That issue (suspensions) isn't about NEC being spineless. The more questionable point is probably whether NEC should have stood firm in challenging JL not facing disciplinary but being let go to save legal wranglings/expense and potential bad media coverage. However legal proceedings can (and have in previous ET case) drag on over 3 yrs. Would we have wanted to be in a position in last 2yrs of having to contest an unfair dismissal at ET alongside seeking publicity & public support for TR battle and potentially STILL be being distracted by it when there are far more crucial issues (jobs, t&c and principled Probation practice) to focus on, fight for & defend? Much as it galled me it made more sense to focus on what mattered most-the greater good rather than retributions.
DeleteNapo spin tell the truth. They used suspensions to protect themselves for being challenyed on the monies to the disgraced. I was told the circulated questions was sent to nec reps only. Napo blanket cover up get honest with readers. The non nec reps I understand were in fact just ending their terms. Napo blah blah spin lie spin lie lie.
DeleteIn response to : -
ReplyDelete" Anonymous5 July 2015 at 10:10
Why don't NAPO keep this forum regularly updated "
I maybe be misunderstanding but to me the answer is simply because THIS FORUM is not Published by Napo.
Sadly Napo Centrally have never contributed to this Forum, though many individual members continue to so do, as far as I can tell.
I am an individual associate member of Napo and take no part in Napo's democratic business, in accordance with the conditions of my membership.
Kids Company's Camila Batmanghelidjh: 'Our political leaders can't bear to face the truth' – video interview
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2015/jul/03/kids-company-camila-batmanghelidjh-video-interview
I read all about the kids company over the weekend and it made for some very unpleasant reading - the article I read was with contributions from ex-employees; ex children and a financial donor so to me the article was backing up its claims with firsthand evidence. It didn't put the company in a good light.
DeleteYou lot allow NAPO to rule the roost as you still pay subs. Why do you stay in NAPO? Oh, it's insurance in case something happens. Well I tell you, a lot has happened and what has NAPO or its leadership or the NEC done for you!!!! nothing or not very much considering how much subscription fees are
ReplyDeleteMore anonymous criticism of NAPO from a non-member? I stay in NAPO because they are MY union. Your opinions as an outsider are of no concern to me.
DeleteWould you like to tell me exactly what you think NAPO have managed to achieve here? The workforce has been told it will be cut by one third, the EVR terms remain the same as what Sodexo have wanted to offer from the start, and for those over 55 they are in fact worse than the statutory compulsory redundancy terms. The only battle they have left to lose is for there to be any form of voluntary redundancy at all. On top of that for some reason they have taken a holier than thou approach and decided to keep their members in the dark throughout 4 months of uncertainty. And that's without mentioning their pathetic attempt at a judicial review over the privatisation process in the first place.
DeleteThe only way to survive the current situation is to use collective bargaining in an effective fashion, but I wouldn't be surprised if NAPO were to recommend us all taking the upcoming derisory EVR offer. Followed by reductions in holidays, pay and conditions...
Yes exactly and with IL spouting off his trademark the best that can be achieved for you professionals at this time. All spin .
Delete8:56 I agree with you but the non member has made some unavoidable truths the NEC are spineless to hold the officers to account. That is why we are in the mess and members will be leaving. I heard their big AGM news is to see us all taken into another bigger union.
DeleteYet more slagging of napo here. The folk that let you down are those who failed to comply with democratic votes to strike in the past. The union is weak cos the workforce are not united, and didn't have the guts to fight , save for the few. Workers should look at themselves before blaming the union for everything. Stop rolling over and show some fight people.
DeleteA retired PO
Napo agreed this but your ok out on your pension. It is those that cant need to be very concerned.
DeleteI have much admiration for the Greek decision. Courageous & correct in my view. Good Luck!!
ReplyDeleteMaybe we could take a leaf out of their book & tell the greedy capitalists to take a running jump, seeing as we are also being held to ransom by insatiable thieves?
Austerity and privatisation for the few, yes its all part of the same neoliberal ideology. Really our fight is the same as the Greek fight , we just lack the friendly Marxists in NAPO
ReplyDeletePapa
There is a dark foolish ideology in Napo they don't appear to have really understood what was coming and we still have not dawned how bad it will end up.
DeleteVan Morrison knew "The best is yet to come". My barometer tells me just wait until you're asked to give napo the green light to negotiate away your existing EVR package or, better still, to give them the authority to accept Sodexo's secret offer - which I believe was unveiled earlier in this thread, without challenge (anon 3 july - see above). Bend down, touch toes, don't make a sound - its austerity time!!!
DeleteWhomsoever voted this shower of greedy fuckwits into power needs some medieaval remonstration involving real physical PAIN.
Without a shadow of a doubt this will all come to pass. Only a real idiot could not have seen redundancies coming, it is rule 1 of privatisation. If we, and I'm sure we will, come out of this with anything less than EVR whoever Napo employed as lawyers overseeing the TR contracts should be liable for failing to spot the loopholes Sodexo appear to exploiting so effectively.
DeleteIt is a shame that we have no other means of standing up for ourselves, Napo seems to be totally failing to represent even it's own members. My worry is that people's spirits have now been broken and sufficient numbers will take the above offer, simply because it seems beyond our representatives to express just what we are due, the levels of redundancies that will be made by grade, and indeed the degree to which we can be screwed over. Perhaps we'll see IL on the Sodexo board in a couple of years ;)
Does anyone have any thoughts, or ideally knowledge, of the staffing plans, presumably also including redundancies, for the NPS ?
ReplyDeleteWait for the emergency budget speech this week.
DeleteQualifying tpo's havent a chance. No where to put them with the masdive cuts coming
DeleteTake EVR then register with an agency
Deletehttp://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/security-safety/probation-prison-service
From HRReview:
ReplyDelete"Employers are increasingly seeing laid-off workers take them to court to dispute the size of redundancy settlements, law firm EMW has warned.
... figures show that the number of redundancy pay cases accepted by Employment Tribunals increased by 76% to 19,000 in the year to April 1 2010 and a further 8,600 cases were accepted in the six months to October 1 2010.
EMW says that employees (are) taking action against their ex-employers because, having been part of a second or third wave of redundancies, they have received a less attractive compensation package than colleagues who lost their jobs first."
2010?
ReplyDeleteYes, 2010. Nothing new under the sun. Greedy, dishonest, thieving global capitalists didn't crawl out of the woodwork in the last 12 months.
Delete