Another statement out from Napo and Unison today. I hope my first reading of this is wrong, but it rather looks like this: "We told Sodexo to pay EVR, they said no, so we're giving up and trying to bump the severance package up a bit." Nothing quite like holding a firm line in defence of your members. Wonder what happens when Sodexo decline to improve the severance package?
*****
Sadly I fear you are right: "At the meeting Sodexo confirmed that it will not offer EVR, so we are now in discussions to improve the voluntary severance scheme that is on the table."
Fuck Right Off. You do NOT have my mandate to abandon my terms & conditions. You do NOT have my authority to leave my EVR in the pockets of greedy arseholes whilst offering me a handful of shit for over 20 years of professional contribution. I'd rather die penniless trying to achieve what's right than capitulate to these mofo's.
"We believe that the voluntary severance scheme falls far short of what Sodexo can actually afford..." - No Shit, Mr Lawrence. FUCK OFF & LET SOMEONE COMPETENT HAVE A GO.
*****
This is a sorry post to read from a colleague and napo members. This is what many are saying and thinking. It has to be time for Ian Lawrence to be made to go. Members will want to see the back of him at the AGM. NPS members will not return and will go at check-off at Christmas. Suffering colleagues still pay NAPO wages and you have run the Union under with constantly failing decisions and poor judgement. A lot of tough talking and no real capacity to understand what was happening.
The total PR shambles has in part been orchestrated by a defence of a post holder who neither has the skills or abilities required of such a role - evident in the total silence and lack of any response in the press for the incredible Sodexo behaviour. I don't mean the EVR, I mean the sacking of brilliant staff who have worked incredibly hard and loyally to be dismissed when the risks to the public are not understood.
Not one PR release, yet a salary wasted that should be directed towards legal action for the breach of contract, yet it appears he is rushing back into a negotiating room to do what? He will agree a watered down worsening deal. Once agreed, it will be described as 'the best we could achieve' - rubbish and no doubt he will look for a pat on the back from some adoring top table fan club member.
Napo should have alerted members to what was to many an obvious total destruction of the probation services. The timing is the Transfer arrangement which NAPO agreed were such clear markers. Those members who do not have the experience of knowledge of these matters rely on that assessment from the Union. It never came in instead it was agreed by the leadership. Inevitably it is a rubbish agreement Napo brokered. Harry Fletcher was the last straight talking PR competent and he disappeared in a strange arrangement, yet the NEC let you Napo do that too.
Members of Napo will not be encouraged to attend the AGM part of this disincentive has been the claw back of funding support to for AGM. In fact this is an open wound now and many will turn up anyway calling for a leadership change with a motion of no confidence. The AGM will look to hold those in the top accountable not like the few at the NEC who adopt everything that is told them. It is a clear statement telling Napo there is no mandate for renegotiations. We would all rather see a fight and we all need to tell Sodexo sack us on compulsory terms and our union will take class action ETs.
NAPO need to act properly and instruct lawyers now. They need to consult members for a formal trades dispute. They need to spend the NAPO reserves in a way to consult on a national collective issue to ensure the rest of the waiting CRC companies don't just follow suit as they watch Ian Lawrence implode. What has happened to the chest beating mouthing off "not on my watch" rhetoric now? Currently what is being done is not what we want or would expect our Union leadership to be doing. Spare us this old spin again, again, again. Weak approach is what got us into this mess despite the re framing and Narcissistic reinvention of the facts Napo have given us.
It is time to see a lead, have a fight, get a legal claim going and protect the membership, not holding onto the money for reserved redundancies for NAPO. However this goes, lets hope Ian Lawrence goes as a result of members realising the spin and the bluster is all a sham. It's time to call him and hand him the redundancy he thinks is ok for us. I bet he will be asking for the full rate of his term under the codes of his employment. Does anyone know what he would be asking for so we can see if it is good enough for us, then we can adjust the terms in NAPO so they are good enough for him.
*****
So that's that then. Napo failed AGAIN!
Failed to fight TR.
Failed to protect terms and conditions.
Failed to protect EVR.
Bottom line is that Napo got our subscriptions for doing nothing; Probation chiefs and managers got golden handshakes for selling us out; and we (the ones doing the work) got shafted AGAIN!
******
I'm sorry I just don't get Joint Union stance on this, but then I don't get much of what the Unions are doing anymore. My mandate for direct debit for Napo is dead in water, just like Napo's representation in CRC. Cannot help but feel Napo only want to retain NPS in the hope they can rebuild on a professional front, along with PI, selling out professional CRC members. If Ian Later Lawrence does not walk, he should be booted out and kicked from here to Mars.
*****
From the Jan 2014 agreement: "National Collective Bargaining
21.It is agreed that the existing national collective bargaining arrangements will continue in the CRCs and NPS on 1 June 2014 by means of the Staff Transfer Scheme. The NNC and SCCOG machinery will also continue to apply to new staff.
22.The MoJ has confirmed that the sale of shares in the CRC to the new provider does not constitute a TUPE transfer of undertakings as there is no change of employer, merely a change of ownership of the shares in the employer company. Following the share sale, the employer will continue to be the CRC and the relationship between the employer, recognised trade unions and employees is unchanged. Existing NNC and SCCOG National Agreements on Pay and Conditions of Service will therefore continue to be the terms and conditions for all staff."
******
"... there is no change of employer, merely a change of ownership of the shares in the employer company. Following the share sale, the employer will continue to be the CRC..."
Without agreement the terms & conditions can't change. So, if NAPO don't agree to any changes on our behalf, Sodexo can't change anything. They can sack everyone & re-employ on new terms & conditions. These are ACAS guidelines.
*****
So why are NAPO negotiating with Sodexo? The six CRCs are the employers, not Sodexo. Sodexo are simply the shareholders, with the Sec of State as holder of a 'golden' share in each CRC.
NAPO, UNISON and GMB/SCOOP met last week to discuss an approach. The meeting was asked by IL, Ben Priestley and the guy from GMB 'what do you want us to do'. They were told the views of all 6 branches and are acting accordingly. Many of the above comments are not informed by the mood of the membership but by the (legitimate) anger of individuals. NAPO has to do what it can, not what it wants.
ReplyDeleteCourse that's right we all believe that . Your mistake is the 6 will set an agenda you claim for the rest of the crcs to follow so Ian Lawrence better do some research on the whole union or just go do us a favour.
DeleteThe use of the word guarateees, in Napo 70, resonated for me. When defending the unions' negotiations for the framework agreement, in August 2013, the general secretary of Napo wrote: ''to try and secure a framework agreement that guarantees the protections that we know you would want to see in place...' We now know the framework agreement miserably failed to secure any guarantees. Now, in Napo 70, the unions are saying they cannot guarantee anything and on this they are surely right.
DeleteNo one asked me and I work in a sodexo crc. Don't use consultation as an excuse napo
DeleteJoint Napo/UNISON statement thtee weeks from now....."We have managed to negotiate Sodexo down to 1.5 weeks......best deal for our members etc etc.... valiant hardball negotiations etc etc"
ReplyDeleteCloth eared jellyheads the lot of em.
The targeting and vilification of IL on here as well as NAPO generally is shocking. Some bloggers should be ashamed. This blog won't beat NAPO!!@#@@
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
DeleteHe is a public figure the self proclaimed tough leader who says a lot about not on my watch. Sadly its all happened on his watch and his alone. It is his responsibility and at his pay grade to ensure the best advise and hardest risk warnings are properly orchestrated and warned to all NAPO members. Clear instruction to deliver action when required and why the 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 he 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 we 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.
DeleteRubbish he has to go your defence with not one thing positive to demonstrate hisnsustained suitability helps the arguments to say good bye
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why NAPO have rushed out this letter to members before we have heard what Michael Gove has to say, following talks with him and NNC negotiations.
ReplyDeleteand which is that ambiguous clause? Is it the one I pointed out in an earlier post yday, about the ambiguity of the monies given to Sodexo being spent 'for the same purpose''. Did that mean redundancies or the more generalised 'reduction of sustainable resources'? Crucial difference.
Shame that IL'cannot tell us yet' again...
Yea I get the feeling Jim and his decipals 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
ReplyDeleteMl is correct I is all clause though. I am pro Napo pro union pro workers rights pro pro solidarity pro our membership. However if they are dictating a discussion of reduced terms and Napo agreed he screws it up for the whole. something he has already demonstrated to well . He has to go for the latest mistakes. I see you did not defend tom rendon when Ian lawrence was named for his differences and still no official inquiry why not. The Gs ousted him sounds like he need the same. We need a capable leader.
ReplyDeleteCome on lets face it. There is only an outside chance that a select few that will get EVR , or EVR aint happening at all. Government / CRC Heads have control and the power over us and the Unions are powerless to prevent it. We are prolonging an impossible agony. EVR is over or limited. Lets move on to other jobs outside of CRC or accept the predicament and stay put in CRC . We would possibly get further forward and more success by not asking about EVR but seeing whether us CRCs employees could transfer to NPS.
ReplyDelete11.46 for NAPO Chair. First sensible post in weeks. I'm tired of this EVR shit. Just let Sodexos keep the money so they can put the money back into clients and interventions
ReplyDelete1146 1202 sodexo management ru.
DeleteCouldn't agree more with 11.46 ,We will not get EVR but we need at least a reasonable offer so fingers crossed wet get an improved offer,
Deletefrom an active napo member who is not at work today
Why is everyone blogging in work hours?
ReplyDeleteYes I agree. Why are you blogging in work hours?
DeleteYes, I agree. Get back to the grindstone you slackers. It must take you 11 seconds to post here. That is SODEXO time!!
DeleteI was using work wi-fi too...
DeleteI'm a member of NAPO and I'm buying their product - membership. I'm not happy with the service received so can I sue under the supply of goods and services act? My mate reckons I can
ReplyDelete'Sodexo can't change anything. They can sack everyone & re-employ on new terms & conditions. These are ACAS guidelines.'
ReplyDeleteThis is the crucial point. All Sodexo have to do is terminate all staff contracts and re-employ on new. If you don't sign the new contract you will have resigned. It happened in another CRC to a partner agency. Unions could do nothing. T&C were changed and some had salary reduced by 7k after re-grading. If/when they are made redundant, probably March 2016 if not before, they will have statutory on their new salary.
Employers in small companies engage these incredible but legitimate process . That is not the same as a large employer or the unique twist in the status of the CRCs . The contract management would be compromised and the government could not hid that claim in a court and win. Napo would have to get some money to take the case so who knows if there is no risk from the union they may just try it on.
DeleteThe game is over Probation is dead. Why not register as a Labour Party supporter and Vote for Corbin. The cost is £3 and it's the only chance you will have to affect what happens to Probation now. As usual Netnipper is spot on.
ReplyDeletepapa
I'm voting for Corbyn too. Only credible candidate
DeleteThis from Facebook:-
ReplyDeleteChas Berry 'Can't be bothered anymore'? Bottom line is we are totally opposed to the job cuts and continue to be so. At the same time we have a duty to those staff who have had enough to secure the best terms rather than face compulsory redundancy which could be on a last-in-first-out basis. If you read the whole statement you will see WHAT ARE THE UNIONS DOING
Sad that dumbing down everyone's entitlement across six CRCs is seen as democratic. Three of the six CRCs embedded enhanced terms into their CRC t&c's. Insightful? Fortuitous? Planned? I don't know, but my CRC did just that. I'd like my terms & conditiobs honoured, thanks very much. Colleagues who left last year got preferential terms, some even got CRC jobs as well! NAPO coukd have advised CRCs to embed t&c's... in fact, they should have advised members of everything instead of playing this "I can't tell you" shit. In deeply unhappy & shitty circumstances I have perfectly acceptable EVR t&c's which NAPO seemed determined to relinquish so that others can grab a few more pennies. 15 months' money for 24 years' unblemished service (& 24 years' fully paid up membership) is poor, but manageable. 7 months' money is derisory.
DeleteChas Berry just lost my vote for Vice Chair. Bottom line we are being lied to over and over again. Read back over the last 12 months and Napo have consistently changed tactics as flaws in their reached agreements have been ripped to shreds. IL is as shameful a spin doctor as Chris Grayling, he should walk the plank of shame along with the Media/communications female, whose name escapes me because we here so little from her.
ReplyDeleteWell said 2253 but JB posts Chas Berry claims Last In First out LIFO as a Napo concern here is the quote " which could be on a last-in-first-out basis" This is completely outrageous and is exactly why a 250 word statement to get elected means you will elect someone who clearly has no real clue at what they should be advising members on. On this item alone DONT VOTE FOR THE MESSENGER OF SPIN. I doubt he actually realises the implication of what he is suggesting but he will when scrutinised he will certainly claim he only said could not would. LIFO as an option may suit some employers but not a chance in CRCs. Mr Berry needs to be accurate about a significant phrase like LIFO. On that basis an employer would have to dismiss twice as many low paid new staff than a few top of scale workers. LIFO runs the risk of getting claims of breach of contract and also diminishes any workforce age planning. Last in staff are already cheap anyway and new ones not on LGPS. Mr Berry often blogs on here as a National Vice chair yet terms it a personal comment . Just as much a two sided distortion as the LIFO misjudgement. I could not vote for this level of commentary he does not seem to understand the issue. I would hope many staff feeling threatened by such error wont help put the guy back . In relation to the Compulsory redundancy issue it has been well put in a blog that many members who could be dismissed on the grounds of efficiency retain the right to claim an ET for unfair dismissal. Claim for the loss of terms in Payments as a detriment. Claim benefits and claim for mortgage redundancy insurance protection. So many staff do not have a choice than to wait it out. Voluntary is no option force the point to the employers. Now ask yourselves why does NAPO potentially now I say potentially in the slippery sense of not being definitive here but NAPO will want as many members signed off in agreements or Voluntary because they are most likely fearful of having to fund or find ways to reject legitimate and genuine cases for ETs. I hope is the Sodexo group force sacking then claims for ET go forward some on Domestic insurance claims . Any wins there while NAPO may refuse will see a can of worms open the core of what is looking pretty bleak in the NAPO think tank. I reckon they depend on members being oblivious or do not care anymore.
Delete