SODEXO REFUSE TO IMPROVE THEIR SHODDY SEVERANCE SCHEME
Given the way in which this company have conducted themselves in their dealings with the unions over the last month or so, it's not a great surprise that they have refused to improve the severance scheme offer that they eventually published to staff in their CRC's on the 16th July.
As we have previously jointly reported and will be doing so again as regularly as we can, Napo, Unison and GMB have spent many fractious and exasperating hours (no, make that weeks) trying to understand precisely what it was that we were being presented with. Below is a truncated history of developments which sets out the real facts as to what has been going on.
Originally way back in June, the Sodexo representatives claimed that they were seeking to vary the NNC Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy terms which led us to challenge this using the National Negotiating Council Joint Secretaries who directed the parties to enter into substantive negotiations.
Its pretty clear now that Sodexo never had any intention of negotiating on their proposals since it was only on the 16th July that they told staff and the unions (without sharing their literature with us beforehand) that what CRC staff were actually being offered was not a redundancy scheme at all but a vastly inferior version of an early severance package.
Whilst I am prepared to accept that some of this was originally due to a lack of understanding on their part in that it was not just the operations, but the collective bargaining machinery that they had been sold, there has been plenty of time for them to reflect and come back with at least some improvement on their sub-standard offering.
That they have not, will raise real questions amongst members as to whether they even considered it.
Where next?
Its ironic that todays news comes four days after we met with Sodexo last Monday to urge them to reflect on the serious damage this approach will bring to staff relations, and our attempts to constructively engage with them and the CRC's under their ownership. Throughout this sorry tale they have constantly berated the trades unions for taking to long to respond but have deliberately delayed a response to see how many staff they can intimidate into making an application. I cannot tell people not to do so, but I can say its a con-trick of the highest order.
By the way, I actually have some sympathy with the CRC Chiefs in Sodexo's empire. Their traditional role of negotiating meaningfully with the unions has been reduced to that of being messengers of despair for the disingenuous profiteers who now run the probation services within their contract areas. How sad does it get?
In a climate where our members fear for their jobs and their families future, whilst being patronisingly told by Sodexo that the company can't afford full EVR terms, the company ought to expect their CRC staff to be livid about this situation.
The unions anticipated this eventuality, and I expect us to have finalised our plans to consult with our members on this despicable offer and the conduct of the CRC owners and test the water about the willingness for industrial action. As I said to members in Northumbria this week, it may soon be time to step up to the plate and use the only language that outfits like Sodexo really understand. As always, Napo's future direction on this will ultimately be guided by our members.
Finally, can I just mention that Napo members working in the Sodexo CRC's,should look out for more news on developments early next week. Please ensure that you speak with your local reps or Napo Link Official if you have questions or require further clarity about any of the regular information that the union publishes.
Thanks for your continuing support and loyalty in these desperate times.
WTF - Sodexo "refused" to improve their offer and Napo "sympathises" with CRC probation Chiefs that help shaft staff. I bet every single CRC chief will be getting EVR. And it is clearly now being called "severance" and not "redundancy".
ReplyDeleteIs the point of Napo/Unison/Unions to achieve a positive outcome for staff? All Napo has achieved throughput the whole of TR is the 'check off' extension!
Looks to me like Napo is a very "shoddy scheme" too and should be refunding subscriptions to every staff shafted with a severance package or less.
Sham. Its the only word that's publishable that comes to mind! Applied for EVR 1st round and was declined. Now insulted after months of waiting and having almost no real work to do. Seriously LIVID!!!
ReplyDeleteCorporate Service staff member.
Whilst I don't believe in hurling abuse at the chiefs for the sake of it, the last thing they need is sympathy! They are cut throat careerists, who are well remunerated to deliver the objectives of their corporate masters.
ReplyDeleteNAPO are told that Sodexo can't afford EVR terms. In 2014 Sodexo made a profit of 966 million Euro. And this from Reuters: "At the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting to be held on January 19, 2015, the Board of Directors will recommend paying a dividend of 1.8 euro per share for Fiscal 2014, an increase of nearly +11.1% over the prior year. This proposal is in line with Sodexo’s policy of allowing shareholders to benefit
ReplyDeletefrom the growth in Group net income; it also reflects the Board’s great confidence in the Group’s future and takes into consideration Sodexo’s solid cash-generating financial model. So probably best to invest your redundancy money in Sodexo shares. As a shareholder you will be well looked after!
cash generating financial model = rape of probation
ReplyDeleteThat's incredibly offensive. For someone who works in probation to use that word in that context? Just wow. How inhuman are you?
DeleteI suggest Anon 20:43 checks a good dictionary for the several definitions of 'rape'
Deleteto Anon 20:43
Deleteit is only offensive if you are ignorant about the meaning of the word "rape"
The term rape originates in the Latin rapere (supine stem raptum), "to snatch, to grab, to carry off".[21][22] Since the 14th century, the term has come to mean "to seize and take away by force".[1]
Educated lot us Probation Officers dontcha know? "Just wow" right back at you! Offence? non taken.....much
@20:43 I bet you would take offence if sodexo's behaviour was described as niggardly too, wouldn't you? Dimbo...
Deleteperhaps one last bash at a bit of solidarity, make a stand and all that. Surley losing a days pay due to striking is no longer seen as a sacrifice to far.
ReplyDelete:)
Only if you work in a Sodexo crc. As NPS and other CRCS have different owners there would be no ability for the union to call a strike anywhere except Sodexo CRCs unless they were separately in dispute with NPS and other CRCs
DeleteAre we not still all in dispute over the pay offer? Time to fight back.
DeleteI'm not striking as all is ok were we are. Plus we won't be allowed too.
Deleteanon 21:43, I'm all right so sod the rest, nice touch
Delete21:43 who stands by you when they do eventually come for you (and they will) as we will be gone.
DeleteAnyone from Unison NW region able to post the recent letter from the NW Chair? It read like a well balanced account of the current position, although maybe should have been issued some weeks ago. I had sight of a paper copy today.
ReplyDeleteIan, you ask Where Next? Just take the #$@&%*!'s to court. It's the only thing they're going to listen to. And if there isn't a legal battle to be had then I implore you, just let us know. We are big boys and girls and can handle it. What we can't handle are these false promises. Give it to us straight and let us get on with it. No more games, please. I'll say it again: if this is illegal then spell it out to us and take them to court. If it is not, then be honest with us and let us move on. This is not about what is best for you Ian, this is what is best for all of us who are current Napo members right now... not for future Napo but for us, now. And for goodness sake let the media know!
ReplyDeleteCan't we just sack this Ian lawrence or better yet, just cancel your membership. Like anything, if you don't like the service, then stop paying. Would you go back to a restaurant every month to buy food you don't like? No, so why pat subs as it's clear NAPO doesn't work for you. Napo, like sodexo, serves for the interests of the few. 70k a year. I bet he is laughing his ass to the bank every month. I'd love to know what expense claims he is making for all of these meetings with Sodexo chiefs. Freedom of information request anyone?
DeleteNegotiations have offered us very little throughout TR. 7 months protection should never have been agreed. Strike action will have little effect. It's time to get this into court. If lose at least we tried.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Into court please. This is surely illegal. The company I work for has a policy that clearly states that if compulsory redundancy is looming other options should be explored first including voluntary redundancy paid at EVR until March 2016.
DeleteI said this ages court, take them to court. By time the unions sort this one out we will be out of a job. Me I am cancelling my subs
DeleteIan Lawrence is again as most of the time Bloody wrong. YOu should tell every member to hold tight don't apply for any sodexo offer Make them make us redundant and you set the funds free to take each or all cases to court. You apologise for ex CPO s what a daft thing to do . They do not pay your salary so you don't feel sorry for the enemy . They are the lickspittle group getting paid handsomely. When is you 5 years up anyone could better than your attempts to play a bit too fast and loose.
ReplyDeleteNEC read this and get a grip on the free hand of this top table outfit they know nothing demonstrated by the way this is managed. Anyone who works in this field should not be writing out how they did or didn't negotiate properly what did he expect. They are not going to roll over and play tickle my tummy. Ian Lawrence learn to swim or get back to the shallow end.
Ian Lawrence has proved he cannot tread water, let alone swim, completely out of his depth from start to finish.
ReplyDeleteAll this anti Ian Lawrence stuff again and again - always from anonymous people - seems to me most are trolls - the volume of negativity which is pretty meaningless and I suspect is aimed at further lowering the morale of folk who are under attack and feeling vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense - surely probation and social work folk know better than to keep on rubbishing people who they want to achieve better things - that is totally un probation and un social worker like - why would they lose all professional sense when they write (anonymously) in social media?
Andrew - you will know as well as anyone out here in anonymous-land that we need a scapegoat. IL is paid at least £70k a year, his pitch was that he was a union man. Many members clearly don't feel they've had a fair representation from this self-proclaimed professional. Numerous mistakes, errors of judgement, poor performance have been highlighted. A recent appearance of his at a meeting with senior CRC managers was described to me as "cringeworthy" & "benign". His blogs have been self serving & smug whilst members see their careers disappearing at a rate of knots.
DeletePeople are ANGRY. IL is the Napo figurehead. It aint rocketscience.
You were lucky, you received effective representation from a particularly well informed & proactive rep. You have praised R before on here, & rightly so. I had pisspoor representation from a local rep who was in pocket of management & received no support from
IL or national union when it was brought to their attention. I previously withdrew my subs when a colleague was maliciously accused of behaviour which was totally unfounded & for which they were suspended & then found innocent but... the malicious accuser received an ex gratia payment of mortgage-clearing prportions.
Todgergate didn't help .napo's credibility.
I'm no fan of mindless abuse but I understand the vitriol aimed at napo hq & at IL. Some of it is mine. He's paid & paid well to do a job. This is an independent blogsite, not napo-land. Jim looks after his blog, is particularly liberal & has a keen eye for the troll.
I'm about to lose my job in a CRC. You have made many helpful contributions which I have variously enjoyed & appreciated, but your career aint on the line this time. Napo & IL have a lot to answer for, and they have a duty to provide those answers.
I commiserate with folk who were not well represented by Union officials - unfortunately most do it as part of their wider Union work almost in a voluntary capacity as they are not reimbursed specifically for the hours it takes - frequently hours more than they are contracted to provide. I also experienced some of the less good stuff, though never from Rita Nicholson.
DeleteOf course I realise Union members are angry - I am angry on behalf of the English and Welsh public who do not appreciate what dangers & calumnies are being practiced on them.
I also understand that their is probably more disunity among members of the various Trades Unions involved than before - as there interests are truly now different, whether they be Civil Servants, CRC employees or CAFCASS workers (I think Napo also represents some employed elsewhere as does Unison).
However constantly posting critical comments whilst not - as far as I can tell - using the Unions' democratic structures to censure those of whom they disapprove or attempt to change policy seems illogical.
I recall my youthful shock when a former Napo General Secretary - Donald Bell - was personally criticised in a national Napo General Meeting - he actually resigned soon after and then we had the era of Beaumont which led to us joining the TUC. That sort of activism seems dead - there were splits and some carped for decades after (Ron Lewis and others) but the Union seemed healthier with more engagement - although the quorum gradually was reduced.
By all means use Social Media to express opinions - though vilification is rarely helpful and not the way probation and social work folk mostly approach conflict and trying to influence the behaviour of others - simply because as they learn from training and practise it achieves almost nothing but hardens differences and makes change less likely - at least in the short term - though it can create scapegoats and folk who withdraw themselves if they feel the mood of an organisation is against their views as happened with Donald Bell.
I wrote more which ended up on Google+ whilst I was writing a post to link today's (25th July) On Probation Blog - via Twitter - but that still left some response needed here.
The Google+ link
https://plus.google.com/u/0/110641041120801344429/posts/TC7iAtn4DD9
He is not a client or someone who has particular needs. He has not come to our profession needing those skills and measure of understanding. You are foolish toi make that argument. He is PAID a lot of money to do a job and be an effective leader. He has and continues to fail. Scargill failed but he won the nation trying not to. Ian Lawrence not in the shadow. Defending this guy is a mistake as it add to the criticism in reply. I am no troll this is an excuse to deny there is a real anger out here and a frustration he does not consult widely enough on what we want not what he thinks is wholly best the officer group seem to be a following lost crown and we hear nothing from his paid staff on any role front. What are they doing what do they get paid and why is more to the point.
ReplyDeleteLike I said he is not a client he works for us and he needs to wise up too many members have left napo we are weak as we are losing the capacity in revenues to fight. If the leader is a cause then for the greater good go let NAPO find a new leader and revive some hope in the unions future .
Lawrence needs to go before NAPO AGM. Ranjit Singh for leader....
ReplyDeleteI don't think the anti-Lawrence trolls have any credible argument here. The vitriol reserved for him is denied Ben Priestley and the GMB/SCOOP guys who were all present at the same negotiations. Anyone who has read up on SODALLOFYOU knows they have a well established anti-union ethos. Local Chairs, who were consulted throughout, were asked what the mood on the ground was. The negotiators are informed by that and not by the anonymous ranting that goes on here.
ReplyDeleteIf you are negotiating with someone who ignores agreements, pushes the boundaries of legal process and is willing to disenfranchise it's entire workforce, you have a problem that all the table thumping in the world cannot address. IL is not perfect but he most certainly is NOT the problem here.
Court et dont agree stupid policies that clearly fail that's his problem
ReplyDelete