I make no apologies for being on the same topic today, but it's not just of vital importance to the many colleagues in the six Sodexo CRC's currently wrestling with agonising decisions. This is just the beginning, the 'test case', trail-blazing and setting the scene for similar scenarios to be played out through the whole profession over the coming months.
I now feel much clearer about matters since my post yesterday, so I feel it's worth trying to pull things together today. As with many difficult things in life, there's history; blame to be apportioned; deception to unravel; questions to ask; benefit of hindsight to acknowledge; lessons to learn and accountability to apportion. For me, things began to crystallise with these two paragraph's from Michael Gove's recent letter that at face value, appear straightforward. Oh, how naive of me.....
Gove's letter:-
I now feel much clearer about matters since my post yesterday, so I feel it's worth trying to pull things together today. As with many difficult things in life, there's history; blame to be apportioned; deception to unravel; questions to ask; benefit of hindsight to acknowledge; lessons to learn and accountability to apportion. For me, things began to crystallise with these two paragraph's from Michael Gove's recent letter that at face value, appear straightforward. Oh, how naive of me.....
Gove's letter:-
Any proposals to amend these terms, like those that Sodexo have put on the table, will need to be considered through negotiation with trades union and in accordance with applicable employment law. With regards to the differing Voluntary Redundancy terms that Sodexo are offering, my officials are continuing to work closely with them to ensure they comply with their contractual obligations."
******
I have already discussed this with two friends who are employment lawyers - basically, the major issue is that NAPO signed up to the EVR terms, but foolishly neglected the fact there were no Enhanced Compulsory Redundancy terms. All this meant that any CRC could bypass the EVR stage and move straight to compulsory anyway. By offering the voluntary severance package, Sodexo aren't breaking the terms of the contract. All they're simply doing is offering something completely unrelated to the contract. One of my friends said he couldn't believe how foolishly amateur NAPO had been in agreeing these terms.
******
Some of this was on the blog a long while back and if you look further back this was coming. The leadership we have had has no capacity to look long term. Anyone knows that's what you pay a lawyer to do, find the weak clauses. While Napo should be paying for that instead of the former General Secretary relationships fiasco. The bank rolling big spender Rendon forked out the lolly and we are really going to pay the price for that. He was in the 'in club' and paid off his former buddy. Well done NEC, turned your backs on the people that said no to the scandal. That cover up the NEC assisted because they are weak, led the way for the total scam. I hope Lawro does go before AGM. I will be there to boo and stick 2 fingers up to the monitors and useless pair of chairs, double rubbish. It won't matter I have my letters to get rid of me. I won't be able to fund Napo either. I would rather have a job, but that has little prospect now I have to accept.
******
The situation is simple:-
1) We need to know if what is alleged is true regarding Napo's failure to spot Sodexo's loophole?
2) What legal advice did Napo get specifically in relation to the possibility of a loophole?
3) If no advice, why not?
4) If Napo's legal adviser's failed to spot the potential loophole, what redress is Napo going to seek?
5) If advice was offered, was the advice followed?
All this happened on IL's watch and we need a new General Secretary.
******
I have already discussed this with two friends who are employment lawyers - basically, the major issue is that NAPO signed up to the EVR terms, but foolishly neglected the fact there were no Enhanced Compulsory Redundancy terms. All this meant that any CRC could bypass the EVR stage and move straight to compulsory anyway. By offering the voluntary severance package, Sodexo aren't breaking the terms of the contract. All they're simply doing is offering something completely unrelated to the contract. One of my friends said he couldn't believe how foolishly amateur NAPO had been in agreeing these terms.
******
Some of this was on the blog a long while back and if you look further back this was coming. The leadership we have had has no capacity to look long term. Anyone knows that's what you pay a lawyer to do, find the weak clauses. While Napo should be paying for that instead of the former General Secretary relationships fiasco. The bank rolling big spender Rendon forked out the lolly and we are really going to pay the price for that. He was in the 'in club' and paid off his former buddy. Well done NEC, turned your backs on the people that said no to the scandal. That cover up the NEC assisted because they are weak, led the way for the total scam. I hope Lawro does go before AGM. I will be there to boo and stick 2 fingers up to the monitors and useless pair of chairs, double rubbish. It won't matter I have my letters to get rid of me. I won't be able to fund Napo either. I would rather have a job, but that has little prospect now I have to accept.
******
The situation is simple:-
1) We need to know if what is alleged is true regarding Napo's failure to spot Sodexo's loophole?
2) What legal advice did Napo get specifically in relation to the possibility of a loophole?
3) If no advice, why not?
4) If Napo's legal adviser's failed to spot the potential loophole, what redress is Napo going to seek?
5) If advice was offered, was the advice followed?
All this happened on IL's watch and we need a new General Secretary.
******
"With regards to the differing Voluntary Redundancy terms that Sodexo are offering, my officials are continuing to work closely with them to ensure they comply with their contractual obligations."
This is ambiguous speech and very different from saying "EVR must be paid to staff". Gove is not fighting for probation staff, no politician is. The first comment summed it up. Sodexo ensured a contract where it could do what they wanted, and Napo were too incompetent to prevent it and unison/GMB didn't give a damn either way. Napo had the experience of the London unpaid work sell off, and so knew redundancies would occur. So it was not foolish, but incompetent and useless. I'm in the NPS and Napo will be useless for us there too.
******
Good point. London UPW flogged off, NAPO did nothing to save the PSO grade because they were not seen as professionals. Tim Wilson Chair, Tom Rendon London Chair - his own members - Jonathan Ledger GS. Not a peep from the usually heard Pat Waterman and the rest is history. The cast was set - the national privatisation looked a lot easier to pull off as there was a zero campaign. In fact it became the open door invitation.
******
However, N'bria and Cumbria/Lancashire had policies in place which DID guarantee EVR up until March 2016 if redundancies were to be made. I know that doesn't help the other 4 areas, but surely colleagues in these two areas should have the policy honoured? I believe the phrase is 'custom and practice' ie other people (senior management) have been given EVR as a result of TR but trying to move the goalposts for frontline staff is a clear breach of the policy. Trying to sneak a new policy in without being approved is breach of contract surely?!!
******
And therein lies the problem. NAPO allowed this to happen and now it has, are trying to cover their tracks with misinformation and posturing. They need to back off. Sodexo will not respond to their attempts to bully their way through this, and people who chose to take a deal want to move on.
*******
In March (BR 25/2015) Napo wrote:
'The unions do not expect CRCs to propose any compulsory redundancies during the term of the private contracts.' This expectation was held despite the fact that there was a seven months countdown to compulsory redundancies included in the framework agreement. I have never understood the basis for the assumption, presumably shared by all three unions, that compulsory redundancies were unlikely during the lifetime of the contracts. If this expectation that there would be no compulsory redundancies was truly the groupthink of the unions, then what was their rationale for this expectation? Because it has turned out to have been a monumental misjudgement.
******
Lets be clear. This blog has seen posters asking specifically what reasons did Lawro have for joining in the SCCOG? He was warned by many and I was told reliably he should not be including himself in the talks of the setting up of the TR agreement. Employers should have wrote it independently from his input. That was construction stages, not consultation. He should have received it, read from them and sent to legal for trashing. Instead he helped formulate its incredible deconstruction of us.
******
Re the previous blog which highlighted Sodexo admitting they made a mistake with the over 55's rights and HAVE NOW CHANGED THEIR POSITION - I have seen 3 requests for an explanation about what this means. Altho' I am retired, I still feel for my friends, colleagues and those I have never met, many who are over 55, who are struggling with making major decisions and would like to see someone explain this baffling statement.
******
Thanks, I too am waiting for a response to the very clear and reasonable question posed yesterday. This came very quickly after the IL blog had been updated and posted on here so one wonders why someone from NAPO would not have been able to respond?
******
Napo do not account on this blog, they account to the NEC, so if it's not asked they get away with it. I can assure you Napo had been written to many years back seeking a national policy on redundancy to protect people as it was a fragmented situation and some very decent people saw this. National NAPO did nothing, those letters exist. In West Mids they are the only area to retain their LGPS rights of a 104 weeks pay at point of compulsory redundancy so are laughing at the EVR rate. The harmonisation process also called for upward mergers and so some got a small contract protection. The rest of us will be providing the second pensions rip off since Maxwell and NAPO knew this. Fact!
******
Can I just make something really clear please. EVR is NOT the same a VS. VS is NOT redundancy (in legal status at any rate) - it is people agreeing they wish to go, on the terms being offered, with absolutely no come back. Redundancy - enhanced, voluntary, compulsory, statutory - you name it, it's different, but it IS Redundancy, and NOT Voluntary Severance.
This extremely basic difference is WHY Sodexo have been able to do this. They are offering (and indeed people are choosing to take) something completely different to what was originally on offer - called Redundancy. I am not in a Union. I did not express an interest in the VS. I easily found out, by phoning LGPS that anyone made Redundant over the age of 55 is entitled to their unreduced pension - no losses (to them) for early payment (at it's current value ie. not as if one had paid in for a further X years to 65!).
The situation is awful; workers are suffering. Sodexo and senior management have been, at best, obfuscatory and this whole mess leaves their morals and ethics in serious doubt in my personal opinion. The Unions have been seriously lax in my view, and totally 'off the ball'. Glad I didn't pay any of them - what do people pay their unions for, if not to protect them from exactly this sort of travesty!?
No wonder everyone is thoroughly pissed off. Sadly I don't imagine Gove gives a fig about any of it, or us - and will just bluff his way through the whole sorry mess, and still come up smelling of roses ... you watch. The 'chosen few' always have a way of bouncing back - look at today's news!
*******
This is the best post I have read on here for a long time. Not just because I agree with you, but because you are clear and concise. Now, do you know what IL meant yesterday when he said 'Sodexo had accepted they were wrong re the over 55s and the pension issue'. I don't think they have been wrong about anything. True, we think they were 'wrong' not to offer us EVR, but they have been very careful in everything they have done.
*******
In response to your enquiry: "Now, do you know what IL meant yesterday when he said 'Sodexo had accepted they were wrong re the over 55s and the pension issue'." - Like you, I can only interpret it as meaning they have been wrong to go off plan with the VS to the detriment of the over 55's, instead of offering the EVR. ... NOT that they will have any intention of playing fair and correcting the situation. I don't imagine they are that 'close to change' do you? In fact, I'd put money on them 'offending' again in the future.
*******
Sodexo have been behaving as if the entitlement to a pension for the over 55s is their gift rather than something you and your previous employers have paid into: nothing to do with them. If you are over 55 check with your Pension admin office for the correct position or look at the website. The information is there.
*******
Release of the pension UNREDUCED is a gift! I am 56. If Sodexo were not offering the deal and I wanted to take my pension I would have to bear an early payment reduction of around 40% a year. The deal covers this. The LGPS website you refer to covers the issue of reductions.
--oo00oo--
Wonder whether anybody in our union has seen a certain film? Surely they must remember this
This is ambiguous speech and very different from saying "EVR must be paid to staff". Gove is not fighting for probation staff, no politician is. The first comment summed it up. Sodexo ensured a contract where it could do what they wanted, and Napo were too incompetent to prevent it and unison/GMB didn't give a damn either way. Napo had the experience of the London unpaid work sell off, and so knew redundancies would occur. So it was not foolish, but incompetent and useless. I'm in the NPS and Napo will be useless for us there too.
******
Good point. London UPW flogged off, NAPO did nothing to save the PSO grade because they were not seen as professionals. Tim Wilson Chair, Tom Rendon London Chair - his own members - Jonathan Ledger GS. Not a peep from the usually heard Pat Waterman and the rest is history. The cast was set - the national privatisation looked a lot easier to pull off as there was a zero campaign. In fact it became the open door invitation.
******
However, N'bria and Cumbria/Lancashire had policies in place which DID guarantee EVR up until March 2016 if redundancies were to be made. I know that doesn't help the other 4 areas, but surely colleagues in these two areas should have the policy honoured? I believe the phrase is 'custom and practice' ie other people (senior management) have been given EVR as a result of TR but trying to move the goalposts for frontline staff is a clear breach of the policy. Trying to sneak a new policy in without being approved is breach of contract surely?!!
******
And therein lies the problem. NAPO allowed this to happen and now it has, are trying to cover their tracks with misinformation and posturing. They need to back off. Sodexo will not respond to their attempts to bully their way through this, and people who chose to take a deal want to move on.
*******
In March (BR 25/2015) Napo wrote:
'The unions do not expect CRCs to propose any compulsory redundancies during the term of the private contracts.' This expectation was held despite the fact that there was a seven months countdown to compulsory redundancies included in the framework agreement. I have never understood the basis for the assumption, presumably shared by all three unions, that compulsory redundancies were unlikely during the lifetime of the contracts. If this expectation that there would be no compulsory redundancies was truly the groupthink of the unions, then what was their rationale for this expectation? Because it has turned out to have been a monumental misjudgement.
******
Lets be clear. This blog has seen posters asking specifically what reasons did Lawro have for joining in the SCCOG? He was warned by many and I was told reliably he should not be including himself in the talks of the setting up of the TR agreement. Employers should have wrote it independently from his input. That was construction stages, not consultation. He should have received it, read from them and sent to legal for trashing. Instead he helped formulate its incredible deconstruction of us.
As has been called for in the past, where are the minutes Lawro of all your meetings that you attended? Where is the legal guidance notes, where are the minutes of the SCCOG meetings and what did you tell them that allowed practically the first draft through? Also JUST SO YOU'RE CLEAR as a Napo fee paying member losing my job, I would like Lawros post. I could make the same mess and no worse. Finally, I do not care for the other union leaders. I am holding the man we pay a salary for to account, no one else. Why did the officers let you go to the meetings anyway? Are they that pathetic and send you off 'have a good day at the office dear?'
******
In April 2015, Sodexo released a statement & a comment on this blog was featured in relation to that statement:
"I feel sick to the stomach as I read that Sodexo statement:
"We had planned on the basis that the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract commencement, i.e. 1st September 2015, as per the National Agreement."
Says it all - couldn't be more explicit if they tried - it was planned. The slash & burn, the seven month wait to move to compulsory redundancy, the fact it was written into the agreement. IT WAS PLANNED. So come on Napo, Unison, MoJ, NOMS whoever else sat around that table - OWN UP!!! Who got paid what to put together this travesty of an arrangement whereby "the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract... as per the National Agreement."
******
A similarly themed post on here from 7 Apr 2015:
"The MoJ have stated:
"The enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme, agreed with Trade Unions as part of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer, is funded by the Ministry of Justice in the period to 31 March 2015... We are not currently planning to offer VR to probation officers and other operational roles as we believe we need to retain the skills of those who have been transferred to the NPS."
So what about the poor bastards in CRCs? Sodexo, any ideas?
"We had planned on the basis that the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract commencement, i.e. 1st September 2015, as per the National Agreement. If operationally possible and staff wish to exit early through a compromise, we are currently looking at whether we can offer an exit package on slightly enhanced terms."
*******
We can even go back to 2014 & the words of Lord Faulks in Hansard:
"It is difficult to understand why there is apparently - so the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says - discontent among the staff, because a deal has been negotiated with the unions. We have been undertaking negotiations with probation trade unions and the employers’ representatives over a national agreement for staff transfer that will protect the terms and conditions of staff transferring to the CRCs or the NPS. Probation trade unions and the Probation Association, which represents trusts, ratified the national agreement on staff transfer on 29 January 2014. Trade unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes. The national agreement offers a very good deal for existing staff, and demonstrates our commitment to fairness by going much further than we are legally required to do. Staff will transfer to the new probation structures with their existing terms and conditions in place. The additional protections set out within the agreement include a guarantee of employment in the new probation structures from 1 June 2014, no compulsory redundancies for a period of seven months following share sale and an enhanced voluntary redundancy period of up to 67.5 weeks. Alongside our negotiations, the programme has put in place a dedicated consultative forum for effective engagement with trade unions and employers’ representatives. We will continue to engage closely with trade unions and employers throughout the transition to the new probation structure."
******
I suspect only Gove can put a stop to this process now. As SoS he holds the "golden" share which I believe means unless he gives his blessing Sodexo can't do shit. That was Grayling's notion of holding the reins of the privateers.
So as I understand it Gove could tell Sodexo to halt this VS nonsense & pay EVR or pay VS at EVR rates... Or lose their contracts. He could do that now. Gove could stop this travesty in its tracks immediately if he wanted to.
If he doesn't intervene then he is complicit in, colluding with & condoning Sodexo's illicit employment practices as a key shareholder. He can't claim ignorance of the action, he's already written a letter on the issue & he might then be someone else we can cite as culpable in a group action against Sodexo for breach of contract, etc, etc, etc.
The over 55's issue
I am over 55 and have 2 children at university still financially dependent on me....they live in big cities and cannot pay their own accommodation fees....I need to work for my family....and I still have a mortgage so have my own needs to meet. I want to work and accept my role has changed but I never ever thought I would be living in terror of redundancy given my profession and at this stage in my life. I expect to deliver my usual standard of performance, I just never ever believed a profession could be decimated the way ours has, in such a short space of time.
******
Will someone explain to me what «the pensions issue» is? The deal is either severance lump sum or unreduced pension (55 and over). If you are over 55 and go for severance lump sum the contract requires you to sign to say you will not also seek unreduced pension ie you can't have both. IL's previous communication totally misrepresented this. As per previous requests, will someone from NAPO explain?
"I feel sick to the stomach as I read that Sodexo statement:
"We had planned on the basis that the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract commencement, i.e. 1st September 2015, as per the National Agreement."
Says it all - couldn't be more explicit if they tried - it was planned. The slash & burn, the seven month wait to move to compulsory redundancy, the fact it was written into the agreement. IT WAS PLANNED. So come on Napo, Unison, MoJ, NOMS whoever else sat around that table - OWN UP!!! Who got paid what to put together this travesty of an arrangement whereby "the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract... as per the National Agreement."
******
A similarly themed post on here from 7 Apr 2015:
"The MoJ have stated:
"The enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme, agreed with Trade Unions as part of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer, is funded by the Ministry of Justice in the period to 31 March 2015... We are not currently planning to offer VR to probation officers and other operational roles as we believe we need to retain the skills of those who have been transferred to the NPS."
So what about the poor bastards in CRCs? Sodexo, any ideas?
"We had planned on the basis that the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract commencement, i.e. 1st September 2015, as per the National Agreement. If operationally possible and staff wish to exit early through a compromise, we are currently looking at whether we can offer an exit package on slightly enhanced terms."
*******
We can even go back to 2014 & the words of Lord Faulks in Hansard:
"It is difficult to understand why there is apparently - so the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says - discontent among the staff, because a deal has been negotiated with the unions. We have been undertaking negotiations with probation trade unions and the employers’ representatives over a national agreement for staff transfer that will protect the terms and conditions of staff transferring to the CRCs or the NPS. Probation trade unions and the Probation Association, which represents trusts, ratified the national agreement on staff transfer on 29 January 2014. Trade unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes. The national agreement offers a very good deal for existing staff, and demonstrates our commitment to fairness by going much further than we are legally required to do. Staff will transfer to the new probation structures with their existing terms and conditions in place. The additional protections set out within the agreement include a guarantee of employment in the new probation structures from 1 June 2014, no compulsory redundancies for a period of seven months following share sale and an enhanced voluntary redundancy period of up to 67.5 weeks. Alongside our negotiations, the programme has put in place a dedicated consultative forum for effective engagement with trade unions and employers’ representatives. We will continue to engage closely with trade unions and employers throughout the transition to the new probation structure."
******
I suspect only Gove can put a stop to this process now. As SoS he holds the "golden" share which I believe means unless he gives his blessing Sodexo can't do shit. That was Grayling's notion of holding the reins of the privateers.
So as I understand it Gove could tell Sodexo to halt this VS nonsense & pay EVR or pay VS at EVR rates... Or lose their contracts. He could do that now. Gove could stop this travesty in its tracks immediately if he wanted to.
If he doesn't intervene then he is complicit in, colluding with & condoning Sodexo's illicit employment practices as a key shareholder. He can't claim ignorance of the action, he's already written a letter on the issue & he might then be someone else we can cite as culpable in a group action against Sodexo for breach of contract, etc, etc, etc.
The over 55's issue
I am over 55 and have 2 children at university still financially dependent on me....they live in big cities and cannot pay their own accommodation fees....I need to work for my family....and I still have a mortgage so have my own needs to meet. I want to work and accept my role has changed but I never ever thought I would be living in terror of redundancy given my profession and at this stage in my life. I expect to deliver my usual standard of performance, I just never ever believed a profession could be decimated the way ours has, in such a short space of time.
******
Will someone explain to me what «the pensions issue» is? The deal is either severance lump sum or unreduced pension (55 and over). If you are over 55 and go for severance lump sum the contract requires you to sign to say you will not also seek unreduced pension ie you can't have both. IL's previous communication totally misrepresented this. As per previous requests, will someone from NAPO explain?
******
Re the previous blog which highlighted Sodexo admitting they made a mistake with the over 55's rights and HAVE NOW CHANGED THEIR POSITION - I have seen 3 requests for an explanation about what this means. Altho' I am retired, I still feel for my friends, colleagues and those I have never met, many who are over 55, who are struggling with making major decisions and would like to see someone explain this baffling statement.
******
Thanks, I too am waiting for a response to the very clear and reasonable question posed yesterday. This came very quickly after the IL blog had been updated and posted on here so one wonders why someone from NAPO would not have been able to respond?
******
Napo do not account on this blog, they account to the NEC, so if it's not asked they get away with it. I can assure you Napo had been written to many years back seeking a national policy on redundancy to protect people as it was a fragmented situation and some very decent people saw this. National NAPO did nothing, those letters exist. In West Mids they are the only area to retain their LGPS rights of a 104 weeks pay at point of compulsory redundancy so are laughing at the EVR rate. The harmonisation process also called for upward mergers and so some got a small contract protection. The rest of us will be providing the second pensions rip off since Maxwell and NAPO knew this. Fact!
******
Can I just make something really clear please. EVR is NOT the same a VS. VS is NOT redundancy (in legal status at any rate) - it is people agreeing they wish to go, on the terms being offered, with absolutely no come back. Redundancy - enhanced, voluntary, compulsory, statutory - you name it, it's different, but it IS Redundancy, and NOT Voluntary Severance.
This extremely basic difference is WHY Sodexo have been able to do this. They are offering (and indeed people are choosing to take) something completely different to what was originally on offer - called Redundancy. I am not in a Union. I did not express an interest in the VS. I easily found out, by phoning LGPS that anyone made Redundant over the age of 55 is entitled to their unreduced pension - no losses (to them) for early payment (at it's current value ie. not as if one had paid in for a further X years to 65!).
The situation is awful; workers are suffering. Sodexo and senior management have been, at best, obfuscatory and this whole mess leaves their morals and ethics in serious doubt in my personal opinion. The Unions have been seriously lax in my view, and totally 'off the ball'. Glad I didn't pay any of them - what do people pay their unions for, if not to protect them from exactly this sort of travesty!?
No wonder everyone is thoroughly pissed off. Sadly I don't imagine Gove gives a fig about any of it, or us - and will just bluff his way through the whole sorry mess, and still come up smelling of roses ... you watch. The 'chosen few' always have a way of bouncing back - look at today's news!
*******
This is the best post I have read on here for a long time. Not just because I agree with you, but because you are clear and concise. Now, do you know what IL meant yesterday when he said 'Sodexo had accepted they were wrong re the over 55s and the pension issue'. I don't think they have been wrong about anything. True, we think they were 'wrong' not to offer us EVR, but they have been very careful in everything they have done.
*******
In response to your enquiry: "Now, do you know what IL meant yesterday when he said 'Sodexo had accepted they were wrong re the over 55s and the pension issue'." - Like you, I can only interpret it as meaning they have been wrong to go off plan with the VS to the detriment of the over 55's, instead of offering the EVR. ... NOT that they will have any intention of playing fair and correcting the situation. I don't imagine they are that 'close to change' do you? In fact, I'd put money on them 'offending' again in the future.
*******
Sodexo have been behaving as if the entitlement to a pension for the over 55s is their gift rather than something you and your previous employers have paid into: nothing to do with them. If you are over 55 check with your Pension admin office for the correct position or look at the website. The information is there.
*******
Release of the pension UNREDUCED is a gift! I am 56. If Sodexo were not offering the deal and I wanted to take my pension I would have to bear an early payment reduction of around 40% a year. The deal covers this. The LGPS website you refer to covers the issue of reductions.
--oo00oo--
I want to end with, what for me, is a very thought-provoking contribution from Friday. It's from Schindler's List of course. We all know everyone at Napo HQ read this blog, so the message will get through....
Amon Goeth: This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that. *That's* cruel.