Leadership

Can'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 pay 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?

*****
Ian 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 CPOs what a daft thing to do. They do not pay your salary so you don't feel sorry for the enemy. They are the lick spittle group getting paid handsomely. When is you 5 years up? Anyone could better than your attempts to play a bit too fast and loose.

NEC, 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.

*****
All 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.

It 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?

*****
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 "cringe worthy" & "benign". His blogs have been self serving & smug whilst members see their careers disappearing at a rate of knots.

People are ANGRY. IL is the Napo figurehead. It ain't rocket science.

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 piss poor 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 proportions.

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 ain't on the line this time. Napo & IL have a lot to answer for, and they have a duty to provide those answers.

*****

In discussing the performance of Napo and issues of accountability, it's inevitable that mention is made of the general secretary. I agree he should not be personally abused or scapegoated for the failure of the unions in probation to stop TR or secure an impregnable framework agreement. The unions, with the odd exception in some sectors, are weak across the economy. This reflects the success of neo-liberalism, not the uselessness of trade unions.

Replacing IL would not revive the fortunes of Napo and to think otherwise is a triumph of hope over experience. It is arguable whether the union leadership could have done more to raise the consciousness of its members to the dangers of TR and the necessity of solidarity in opposition to the threats posed. But, unfortunately, the solidarity, as demonstrated in turnout in ballots and support on the ground for industrial action, was not there.

Intuitively it was tempting to think that a workforce within a politicised justice system, would have been politically savvy and smart enough to see solidarity as being in their self-interest. But it would seem that the workforce was atomised and unable to collectively see what was in front of its nose. It is impossible for any trade union leader to lead when so few are prepared to follow. If you believe in 'The Great Man Theory', then IL should go, but if you take the view that it's the wider social trends and conditions that enable leaders to make an impact, then no leader without supporting structures can achieve anything. The failure of Napo is a shared failure.

*****
He is a public figure, the self proclaimed tough leader who says a lot about 'not on my watch'. Sadly it's all happened on his watch and his alone. It is his responsibility and at his pay grade to ensure the best advice and hardest risk warnings are properly orchestrated and warned to all NAPO members. Clear instruction to deliver action when required and why they needed to do it, no question. He did not and it fell apart. He did do a lot of fudging and JR shuffle lost and misled members on who won. Did not tell us the costs but AGM will out and the list goes on. Publish his success record against the negatives on this blog and there may be a debate. At this time however, he is a membership losing GS. It would be cheaper to see him go and stem the membership resignations as he puts the union at risk by staying. It is his ego that will keep him banging in the rhetoric, but in reality he must realise if the AGM start up and get angry and rightly so, the buck stops at his door.

I speak to many people who are of the opinion that he should not be in role now, if he is able to survive. Lets hope not for the good of NAPO members who are left. It is time to recognise we need a new direction or we are finished. He has said as much in his submissions to the NEC about selling Napo into a co-union merger. He did not go to members for permission on that either. Instead he flannels it through the non listening NEC in that 'what you want me to do' auto suggestion con the audience mode he uses. He says that is accountable. Wise up members.

*****
Yea I get the feeling Jim and his disciples are anti Napo. Maybe they missed out on a shot at the big time and now use this forum to vent at what is wrong instead of suggesting what is right. On the flip side though, Jim et al are somewhat correct in wanting to hold Napo to account as they have let some members down badly. Not all, but some.

--oo00oo--

I've said it numerous times before and say it yet again - I'm not anti Napo, but I can't abide bullshit and bollocks. In the five years this blog has been running, there have been some regular themes in the 1438 published posts. If I key in the word 'dysfunctional' - not operating normally or properly' - I find it cropping-up in 39 posts, all about Napo. Take this for example from 2014:-

Yes a very good point and just another illustration sadly of the utter dysfunctionality of Napo at the top. A very unwise move politically in the middle of this struggle to add to all the other very unwise moves by other people at the top in Napo.

BUT we are where we are as they say and bad as it is we have to try and get the good ship Napo, holed and rudderless as it is, patched up and back steaming full ahead in the right direction. This can happen by the membership making their voices clear in a variety of ways, including this blog.

Things have improved - the information flow, for example by direct emails to members has vastly improved. After much prevarication, things are at last moving on Judicial Review, although it may be too late.

There's no doubt the Chair has made some unwise decisions, but while he remains Chair I think he must be supported and encouraged to make the right decisions, especially in getting a grip on the activities of the paid staff at Chivalry Road, exercise some firm leadership and make the most of Grayling's current difficulties. There's plenty of time for recriminations further down the line, starting at the AGM I suppose.

It's a bloody mess - but it's been a mess at the top in Napo for so many years it's almost like situation normal. The breakout of free speech just might improve things. Observant readers may have noticed that I've made mention of a dysfunctionality of leadership at the top of Napo several times. To put it bluntly, I think there are considerable tensions between Chair and General Secretary that require resolving. The AGM is a few months off yet, but it's absolutely vital we get firm leadership now and an action plan that can maximise on Grayling's current difficulties and especially with bidders getting cold feet for TR. 

What might an emergency 'Action Plan' consist of? 

• Retain Harry Fletcher's services until October at least 
• Employ an ethical PR company to assist Tania Bassett 
• Recruit one or two front-line practitioners for media appearances 
• Broaden the Campaign Committee membership 
• Encourage as much dialogue as possible on new media platforms 
• Keep the membership fully informed and engaged

--oo00oo--

As far as I'm aware, nothing happened. 

The blog continues to be both read avidly by Napo HQ, but at one of the same time studiously ignored publicly. Quite idiotic, but I've given up being bothered because the membership read it anyway. 

Unhappiness with the 'top table' is a very regular theme and here is a roundup of comments regarding Napo from May this year. I decided not to publish them at the time because the PO in me is always hoping for change, but it hasn't. In fact things are getting much worse with, I'm told, 70 members a month leaving. I would never advocate such a move because it's far more important to stay and have a voice both in elections and at the AGM. So, somewhat belatedly, as the AGM approaches once more and with elections ongoing, here's what was concerning readers just before the general election:-     

Ian Lawrence is a f*cking snake. "If some losses are unavoidable". As ever it's capitulation all the way while expecting us to be dumb enough to swallow the same old empty bullshit posturing. Why haven't we sacked him? F*ck you Lawrence.

*****

I think NAPO are keen to wind the union up and doing everything in there power to cock things up.

*****

I hold the full members of Napo responsible for not using their constitution to control the way their officers and employees work.

Napo centrally, still do not understand or use social media advantageously, by commentating on some developments as they happen and so to gain greater active support. That is the way the child sex abuse campaigners are working and folk like those at the Howard League led by Frances Crook, some former MPs as well. Even Russell Webster works like that, although as he continues, like the London CRC to block me on Twitter I wonder what his real motives are and in whose employ he is in.

*****

You're wrong. 3 brave NEC reps tried to hold the errant joint chairs to account but were suspended. They were blotted out of events colluded with by the rest of their weak NEC colleagues. They had drama and as it in yet the NEC allowed the worst. No chance of getting membership in control.

*****

Opposition is inevitable - but ultimately the totality of the membership 'owns' Napo. As for suspensions/dismissals I think there is a right of appeal ultimately to a general meeting - BUT - folk need to first have a sense of being responsible for the union(s) rather than as the Thatcher generation, may feel - customers - it is unlikely to change overnight but can happen.

*****

Thank you. We really need those who have tried to stand up to Napo HQ in the past to get together and let us know what has been going on. Members are going to find it difficult to stand up to the General Secretary and others if we don't know what we're up against. Personally, I have heard and experienced enough to know I don't trust Napo HQ but we need to build up a picture of where it is going wrong so we can decide what action is to be taken.

*****

Indeed, but I have zero faith in members being able to use existing structures and procedures. The problems are endemic and structural and despite everything that has gone on over the last few years, there has not been the slightest sign that a bit of soul-searching and internal re-organisation is necessary. Given this, I can see no alternative but a campaign to unseat the General Secretary.

*****

I'm with you. Members will need evidence of how things have been mishandled. Anyone willing to speak out will give us a starting point.

***** 

I am sick of those criticising Ian Lawrence. It's not him who's weak. It's us.

*****

He is responsible for everything since his election he gets paid a lot more than you and I. At his level he won't take responsibility for anything. He has the skill of repeating himself all over the place with nothing new. It is a shame he inherited much more of a basket of problems than he could deal with. Ledger issues and 2 shop display model only joint chairs. One who fell off the perch with a publicised Court appearance although cleared had to go just in time. The other turned out to be a disguised collapsible prop neither with adequate experience or knowledge for the tasks in hand. The prop resigns amidst a number of his own scandals, blames everyone else but does not tell us the truth or the extent of the issues underlying his resignation. He had applied for ACE CRC mind, so with that judgement, workers were already defeated. Sadly they are to blame, we only had to vote for them and seal this fate. They need to be sorry, Napo members made the wrong choices.

*****

Ian Lawrence was democratically elected to represent the people but the people (some) turn on him at every opportunity.#fickle

*****

Not everyone who voted in the General Secretary election voted for IL, and just because he is in post does not mean we should uncritically accept how he is functioning in role. Just as we hold politicians to account, (also democratically elected) so we are within our rights as NAPO members to hold IL to account. It is not a question of being 'fickle'. 

*****

I agree with above and the election percentage turn out was appalling. Hardly a majority of members for proper mandate. What do you expect us all to do stand and applaud what is happening to us? This is being done off the back of Mr Lawrence's agreement. No sign of never retreat nor surrender. There has been huge unprecedented disturbance with a chair resigning citing differences and still we have no real understanding of why. Not all of us are so accepting.

*****

Yesterday someone mentioned that 3 NEC Reps holding the joint chairs to account were suspended. How can members find out more about this?

*****

By asking your Branch NEC rep! Some reps were suspended temporarily for sharing confidential NEC correspondence regarding Napo staff to people who were not NEC reps and some who were not Napo members (probably in error when sending emails on to large number of people). NEC reps have as part of their role, responsibility on behalf of members to act as employers of Napo HQ staff which means they are privy to confidential info on occasion.

*****

Ask the 3 that were suspended the truth not more of this subterfuge. They reasonably wanted to share with NEC reps a QA position of the chairs on Ledgergate payoff. The chairs in fear of their obvious failures, responded by suspensions. Don't believe anything but those victimised by their union.

--oo00oo--

These fractious discussions about the Napo leadership have a tendency to end up with blaming the membership in one way or the other:- 

If Napo have been on holiday for years...so have the majority of its members. If Napo is weak that reflects its weak-willed members, the majority of whom never bothered to express their will through ballots. A union like the RMT regularly gets turnouts of 60-70%, Napo barely manages 40% and in electing its GS did not even manage 20%.

It may have been a different TR storyline if there had been some resounding support for the union through the ballot box. No surprise that Napo was perceived to have a weak mandate by the MoJ and the CRCs who are out to smash collective bargaining and spurn collective agreements.

Interesting to see the breakdown of the Sodexo workforce cuts; the re-badging of roles – Authorised Officers completes the divorce from any professional identity. The big cuts to programme facilitators, who just a few years ago, were in the vanguard of reducing offending, are becoming 'also rans'. Probation during the New Labour years was a massive job creation programme in itself as numbers swelled, role boundaries blurred and managerialism marginalised professionalism and new money flowed into union coffers.

Post split I do not know how exactly how many members Napo has in each sector but dealing with the CRCs across the country is going to stretch resources. I do not see a future for the unions in the CRCs as real players. I don't think it will be long before we start to hear of staff councils and other ploys designed to end any semblance of national collective bargaining. Before the ink has dried, Sodexo have shown their indifference to the flagship collective agreement, such is their determination to manage without hindrance from the unions – who they know are weak and thus, in the absence of collective protections, they will knock individual workers into whatever shape takes their fancy.

Will Napo have the resources to maintain a presence in the CRCs or would it be strategically wiser for a smaller Napo to focus on its NPS members?

*****
Sound but sad analysis. As a former local rep I, along with my union colleagues at the time, tried to warn and prepare people collectively and individually for what we saw coming. Anyone reading about EVR at the time could see it was earmarked for a select few and no one else. Staff were up against a silent union and employer conspiracy with neither side wanting a staff exodus ahead of schedule. A schedule in the interests of future CRC owners. What did us local reps do? Took our own advice and planned our exit strategies and left to do other things. I did not want to leave the job I had done for decades but better to leave on your own terms and in your own time. What Grayling and NOMS have done to the Probation Service is an act of sheer ideological vandalism.

******
What does ideological vandalism mean Jim? Idiotic terminology from the above is laughable. Surely TR is more than ideological at this stage?

******
It means significant job losses for experienced, long serving & committed staff who have spent many years busting their bits in order to help ameliorate the damage & consequences of bullies, liars & cheats - and the service they work for has been handed on a gilt edged plate to bullies, liars & cheats. That's the ideological vandalism.

--oo00oo--

In the end though, isn't it about leadership? 

Leadership has been described as "a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". 

Stop Press

And so it goes on. We need a debate:-

I 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.

If 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.