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.
Today's blog helpfully puts most of the jigsaw pieces into their approximate positions... Now we need someone to stop hiding the key pieces, come clean & complete the puzzle. It won't change the outcome, it will just clarify why we've been so royally shafted, and why Sodexo's statement has come to pass:
ReplyDelete"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."
The early exit through compromise is VS, otherwise you're on the compulsory redundancy bus - assuming they haven't met their target figures.
No VR. And for those with EVR terms transcribed into compulsory redundancy agreements in management protocols, they are NOT terms & conditions of employment. What does your contract of employment say? Have you got a copy? Have you ever seen or read it?
Some/many of us in probation-world have been spectacularly naiive & trusting over the years. Sodexo, however, don't give a rats arsehole about us. They want the profit.
Jim, thank you for shining a light. Pity those who we paid to protect us from such sharp practice are at best stupid; at worst, complicit.
Unions negotiate locally agreed policy that is contractual. Once management and the boards ratify the policy and it is published. Any local breach of the harmonised upward redundancy policies will meet immediate breach of contract claims. The terms having been legitimately negotiated and consulted upon with the recognise reps. Many members in some areas where the thinking was done a long while ago will not need Napo central to mount appropriate legal challenge and win the prevailing terms . Of course NAPO ignored the signals to negotiate a national single policy. Not so good for the Northern territories sadly. Look to your reps and what were they thinking.
DeleteOn p.6 Napo News 248 May 2013, Sarah Friday one of Napo's AGS, reflecting on an earlier night of the long knives, wrote:
ReplyDelete'The scale of the job losses arising from the privatisation of London CP is one of the most devastating aspects, with nearly 200 jobs being cut from a pre-privatisation total of around 550 (including about 100 casuals). We were shocked by the speed and number of the redundancies, and complained vigorously – up to a senior Serco managerial level – but were unable to persuade them to reduce the numbers.'
In negotiating the framework agreement it does not seem that memories of the 'devastating aspects' were in the frontfront of the minds of the negotiators. Surely the outstanding risk was that history would repeat itself.
At the end of the article, the main lesson drawn was nothing to do with the competence of the earlier negotiations with Serco, no it was due to a weak membership base:
'The main lesson to be learnt from this privatisation is that we need to make sure we have a strong membership base in those areas of the service under threat of privatisation. It is galling to hear LPT senior managers say at conferences that the unions did not present a problem in relation to privatisation going ahead. Unfortunately we were in a poor bargaining position in London CP as we didn’t have the membership. We need to make sure we are in a strong position to effectively represent members threatened with privatisation. So get out, organise and recruit!'
In relation to the framework agreement, I don't think a 'poor bargaining position' can be the mitigation for a leaking agreement. And given the Serco experience, how could any level-headed negotiator believe that compulsory redundancies were unlikely during the term of the contracts with the private companies?
the unions did not present a problem in relation to privatisation going ahead. Unfortunately we were in a poor bargaining position in London CP as we didn’t have the membership.
DeleteThe sell off for UPW was not challenged by NAPO the decision was Tim Wilson and Jonathan Ledgers supported by the London Chair Tom Rendon. London branch did not register any failure to agree or mount any battle for their workers. Simple Fact.
There was no national campaign to be mounted to ensure the wider membership were alerted to the future likelihood of similar practices. There was no national call for collective action while we were at our strongest. This was the same as saying go ahead . Sarah Friday is distorting the facts . Blaming a weak membership was inappropriate but had anyone challenged that rubbish in the NEC they would have been side-lined by the top table and the NEC collude as usual. They all know who they are followers without question. The decision not to fund a national anti sell off campaign failed the whole membership by a scrooge mentality failing to recognise the dire reality of the obvious war.
Sarah Friday ? Take a good look and what has this person achieved or done for a salary ?
The GS is on the record for stating he knew compulsory measures would see staff go as a GS of a union making that admission he should have gone then. The trouble is we have no standards or any idea what needed to be done . The incredible able and talented strength of joint chairs where we get twice as much brilliance is surprising they have not sorted this I am sure they holding off for a better moment they will have all the skills and insight to see what we do not.
DeleteThis blog is helping to focus upon lines of accountability because there
ReplyDeletehas been a lot of smoke and mirrors.....
1. Given the London UPW experience, NAPO were clearly aware of the likely operation of such contracts.
2. NAPO's lawyers actually attended some national committee and NEC meetings. I am aware that Tom Rendon (then later the two co chairs) and Ian Lawrence had frequent meetings with the lawyers. Written advice will have been issued: this should be published and members should also be provided with the amount spent on legal fees during this period.
3. members should then be able to assess precisely which issues legal advice was sought on ( critical to my mind, were the right questions asked?)
Only then can we assess the governance of our union.
Is the Napo GS going to get heckled and booed at the AGM until he sits down? That's a question to those even bothering to go to what will be a waste of time and money.
ReplyDeleteThe view that 'compulsory redundancies were unlikely during the lifetime of the contracts' was so far from the truth. It is common sense that when private companies take over jobs are cut. I recall sitting in a probation trust meeting in early 2013 in the run up to TR with selected staff, managers and Napo & Unison reps present. The probation chief officer was very clear that when the private companies take over they would restructure, working practices would change and many jobs would be lost.
Bottom line is that everybody knew it was going to happen and no matter how Napo tries to spin the lies, it failed to fight TR and didn't secure a satisfactory redundancy agreement for staff. Napo knew what was going to happen and its legal reps would have clearly explained all the pitfalls. Instead the lies and deceit continues and I look at the latest blog from the imbecile Napo GS and I see the usual 'sabre waving' and also the pitiful references to 'goodwill from Sodexo' and 'sympathy from Michael Gove'.
It seems as if Napo is in the final round and begging to be knocked out. The alternative is that it's a leech trying to drain the subscriptions of its dwindling members for as long as it can, and using the misery to recruit new member to fill its coffers. The Napo GS needs to stop waving Gove's letter because it doesn't mean anything unless Sodexo is unequivocally told by the MoJ to pay EVR or risk breach of contract. And this is not the case and is not going to happen. May have been different under a different government and a with a better Union.
The nature of us Probation Officers ( fair, nice and compliant etc ) means that WE DONT HAVE IT IN US TO BOO AND HECKLE. Thats why we are in this mess in the first place because of our nature. The union know this as too do Sodexo HENCE WHY WE ARE WERE WE ARE.“Now, bring me that horizon.”
ReplyDelete― Johnny Depp
Also, there is the small matter of relocation. We co-locate a site in a small northern town, have done for the 31 years I've been in probation, and now we have all been told we'll be out by December, with no hint as to where that might be! Purple futures etc just waiting for the sodu-all serverence shit to be resolved, then the'll have a clue as to the size of the buildings they require! I feel for all my colleagues, but at this awful juncture the CRC's are in a horrible place! However, I know my turn is just around the corner! Let's be extra nice to each other!
ReplyDeleteSYCRC have been informed that they will relocate end of sept and have 1 box to pck there stuff up no personal items on show one small locker each and very little other info! No idea of what roles they will perform or where clients will report to in October! We think they will just keep turning up to current office but in the absence of CRC receptionists will have to throw stones up at window to get our attention!!! What a farce but at least it keeps us amused when we are not crying !
DeleteAnd still the EVR is being given in other CRCS - I've heard BGSW and DDC have allocated the latest tranche to some - how can this be fair when all we are offered is voluntary severance at best or compulsory redundancy at worst?
ReplyDeleteI suppose the answer, Anon 17:01, is that we are in the world of private business now; each one operating to their own ethical and/or business standards. No Company has to take any notice of what any other Company is doing - not even when said Company seem prepared (at present) to work within the spirit of the Agreement, and are offering the option of EVR (albeit only to some) as opposed to a severance package (which tho perfectly legal is clearly NOT).
DeleteDeb
Perhaps there has been some considerable work put in within certain areas to ensure the local members best protections are properly agreed.
DeleteNPS in a northern area facing same relocation issues......we do not know where we will be when CRC move out (they are progressively doing so and will be gone by Xmas). All we have been told is that we will all be moved "somewhere".
ReplyDeleteOne NPS office has 2 POs for all cases and getting annual leave was a nightmare - had to threaten grievance before the manager would agree leave, then had to get different POs from other locations covering on a day by day basis, no-one knew the cases and the manager then took leave too.Now have managers covering several NPS offices but because some have flexi working agreements they are rarely around on Fridays.....
I do not know where I will end up working after the "relocation" but there are mutterings because my former trust agreed lots of flexi working for staff: Mon-Fri full timers are a minority and now becoming disgruntled because they cannot cover for everyone at the expense of their own workload...
Come where is this ? Your loyalty should be with the site and not your employer. COME DO TELL.................
Deletereally ??
DeleteWhile in another Northern area some CRC teams have been moved out of local offices 3 days/week with no access to mobile IT.
ReplyDeleteCome where is this ? Your loyalty should be with the site and not your employer. COME DO TELL.................
Deletereally ??
DeleteColleagues moan so much on here. Sorry I'm new. What does this site do?
ReplyDeleteWelcome aboard. Why not do some research and read a few back numbers? You'll soon get the gist.
DeleteThis blog provides a lot of information not found elsewhere- former colleagues in one of the Sodexo areas have told me that get their news on what the company is intending here on this blog before it hits their email boxes at work. There is a lot to vent about as you will discover - welcome to the blog!
DeleteNo one moans on this blog. Moaning is too euphemistic.
DeleteThese are expressions of rage with government policies and their impact on the probation workplace. This is fury about the performance of the trade unions and weak lines of accountability. Towards the wider world there is despair about societal inequalities, and an exploitative economic system. In their various forms these comments are rejections of the status quo and demands for change. When people, who despite earning a wage, find themselves relying on foodbanks, bemoan their predicament or when refugees from the killing fields meet barbed wired fences in their quest for asylum, they are not moaning. When probation staff who have put in as many years as their senior managers, see their paltry severance offers compared to the EVR received by their 'leaders', they are not moaning, they are incandescent at the injustice of it all.
Jim, could you do a collection of netnipper comments. No-one else writes with such clarity. If I ever need a psr written on me I want it written by netnipper. Where is he/she ?
DeleteHuge respect and hugs to netnipper!
DeleteGood idea Anon 20:28 I'll ponder on it in one of my quiet moments - should be fairly easy with the search facility :)
DeleteTo Anon 18:34
ReplyDeleteNot moaning just testament ( sort of like not waving but drowning)
Welcome to this wonderful blog!
For many of us, this is what keeps our heads above water...with apologies to Stevie Smith.
"The light at the end of the tunnel is the front of an oncoming train" - Diamond Dave.
ReplyDeleteAnd can someone please do something to get the BlairWeasel to stay away from UK politics; in fact the UK full-stop. He did enough damage before whilst lining his ample pockets. We don't need any more of his Blair-right bullshit, distracting us with wars whilst emptying the Treasury.
Went to a Corbin meet in Plymouth on Friday 1000 there Guildhall full standing room only. Many denied access. No mention on beeb local news. Tragic. Great speech from Corbyn . Heartening to see so many of like mind. Feels like the English snp moment.
DeleteI have seen Corbyn twice now-last time last week at the Guardian hustings in London. It is great to see so many young people now enthused about politics. Chris Mullin - a very British coup- and the old TV series Bill Brand might give clues as to how the right might try to shaft him should he get a sniff at any real power .After all ,Tony, Peter ,Gordon and co. are telling us how silly we all are wanting to vote for him - and we do not appear to be listening! How naughty is that ,boys and girls?? It will all ends in tears before bedtime ,mark my words.
DeleteThis is a good summary Jim thanks. ..18.34 what planet are you on
ReplyDelete18.34 people moan. Sometimes on here... It's just a way of life. Whether we had TR or not. People would still be moaning. Napo is the usual target. The GS next followed buy other ramblings. It's all good though.
ReplyDeleteenjoy the blog :-)
Having the VS Hobson Choice hanging over my head causes me to moan. Not interested in Labour leadership Corbyn et al. when I have mortgage to pay and mouths to feed. Get back on TOPIC PLEASE, DEADLINE FOR MY VS FAST APPROACHING
ReplyDeleteWhen is the VS deadline and what's on the table? If accepted when do you need to clear your desk by?
ReplyDeleteDo a little homework or ask HR.
DeleteWhere's Hatton? I take it back. We miss your blogs :-p
ReplyDeletere 1634 - I was wandering about Andrew myself, given the nature of his defensive and quite sad responses to cruel criticism and then getting even more cruel responses to his responses... I don't think I have seen a comment from him since then, which was around noon on Friday when he tried to defend his dyspraxia, and then someone likened him to another AH, who -quote -damaged the world, while Andrew only damages the blog. Dare I even think that was a comparison to Hitler? If so, that would knock me for a 6, had I been on the receiving end.
ReplyDeleteI have never met Andrew, who is an older, very experienced, quirky man, with clearly a passion for Probation, as I have- I can say that 'cos I am older too - 70 waving at me from a matter of months away- and we both have experienced a very different world of Probation, but whereas mine goes back to 1989- as a very mature student,- his goes back to the 70's, when the world was a different place, never mind Probation. And yes, we old'uns can sound rather boring to the young, modern day officer, but there is still much to value from those days, when we had time to CARE, and weren't ruled by nonsensical, time-wasting technology.
And as for someone telling him to set up his own blog, I have seen Andrew's comments all over the place, following other blogs and newspaper columns, so he does not need to depend on this blog to inform and offer his support, especially when I see some sick insults. Yes, he does change the subject, now and then, which can be a little frustrating , but we are not bound to stay on one topic the whole time,and hey ho, if it irritates you, just ignore it and carry on from where you left off.
And I hope his silence is only 'cos he has been enjoying a bank holiday break. And let us welcome him back, with a little more tolerance than some of us have shown. And try to understand, when you are in the 70 zone, as you will be one day, the young ones ALWAYS think you know nowt!
"tried to defend his dyspraxia"
DeleteI am very sorry if I gave that appearance -
Reflecting on a post that I began: -
" OFF TOPIC for probation nerds only - look away if you want to read about Sodexo and the severance shenanigans.
One of the reason's probation is in the current mess is because of a tendency for folk to focus mostly on the most newsworthy event of the moment ....... "
I began another post immediately after beginning: -
" postscript -
More for nerds - Sodexo and severance is not mentioned. "
and whilst acknowledging difficulties of being a po and social worker with dyslexia and dyspraxia (They often go together, sometimes in combination with other specific learning disabilities) I wrote a little about benefits such conditions can give that I realised only after others pointed them out to me.
My main point of posting
- albeit at the peak of the shameful Sodexo severance debacle - which sadly some seem surprised to realise is actually happening, despite numbers of blogs and commentaries anticipating such bad behaviour since early 2013 -
was because - I had a hope that some readers who will now be supervising unrecognised dyspraxic and dyslexic people, might be prompted to reflect & help them be assessed thereby saving misery and crime.
I was - using myself as an example - I did not begin to suspect either condition until I was fifty years old - but then realised it explained things about my behaviours that I had not understood since criticisms I attracted and remember from when I was at infant school.
I obviously failed - and so am attempting to highlight the issue again.
Maybe another older person will explain to those with little real understanding of probation/family court & social work from before the mid 80s ways in which, although the job was different, it was nonetheless constantly busy and very arduous for many workers.
I doubt that it has ever been as demanding as now though when additionally for many there is a much greater level of simultaneous uncertainty than is usual for a large group of workers. Also now there are seemingly more senior managers, Civil Servants & Ministers at the MOJ/NOMs with malevolent attitudes towards caseworkers and support staff than in my earliest days.
I knew of two young. in the job probation officers, who were dyspraxic but due to difficulties having the condition understood by their employer left the job within 5 years of starting in the late 1990s & early 2000s., and it is possible that there are colleagues among you are trying to manage such conditions on top of the other uncertainties which most are facing.
Thank you ML.
ReplyDeleteJim can we have a Andrew Hatton tribute for all of his good work on this blog highlighting some very important issues?
ReplyDeleteI hope not and 18 18 have you not got something else to do . I am sure the guy needs to take a back seat and let us not notice he might have gone. I don't mind either way just helpful to be reminded to think about the topic in hand . Bless.
DeleteShut up 20.19. Jim boot 20.19 out
Deletehahaha ru a napo monitor gotten lost 2035 hahaha idiot !
DeleteJim, expel 21.58 and 20.19
DeleteDo not fret for me
ReplyDeleteDo you promise to stay on topic Hatton and not deviate from the topic of discussion if we allow you back in?
DeleteWE never banished Andrew or anyone else for that matter. If off topic bamboozles you and makes the voices return, perhaps the blogosphere isn't for you. Welcome Andrew. Tony.
DeleteM. Hatton has rattled some cages - chapeau, monsieur. Vive la difference!
DeleteHey Andrew, I've missed you. Your posts are welcomed, it's good to consider wider and associated goings on, sometimes I have time to look into them, sometimes not. Sadly, some of the views on here are held by people who have a very different, and not uncommonly narrower perspective. When the old days are spoken of they seem not to want to learn or draw inspiration, their way or no way it seems...sadly. and it's not an age thing either !!!! Thanks for all you have done, do and tried...much appreciated.
Delete@21:08I 'm no linguist, but did you just call him Mr Hat??
Delete20:38 the comments section on this blog have always gone off topic because it gives people an opportunity to raise other relevant issues that others may not yet know about.
Deleteold age retired and the weary seem to clog the blog with how pleasant a land it used to be. In a world pre IT and with rosie coloured retrospective views of all the good they did on 2 cases a week with a few part Bs and Cs to do and hand out bus fares and money requests. Days gone by eh ? Just does not compare today go somewhere else out of date as this dreary walk in the past . Get a job flower arranging perhaps.
DeleteA few days ago we had borderline racism when someone referred to migrants being employed in sodexo CRCs as cheaper labour once the current cull is over. 22.04 is now targeting the older officers. Jim, boot out 22.04!!
Delete22:04 I'm interested, how long have you worked in probation? I'll be honest, when I joined in early 2000s the focus was on enforcement and I couldn't understand the 'old' probation officers with their social work views. Over the years a lot of what they had said began making more and more sense to me. So even if you don't get it now, it might not be a good idea to dismiss it altogether. Plus, it's bloody bad manners.
DeleteOk so the 2 cases is tongue in cheek but, serious question, how you know what is being done know is any more effective than the practice 20 years ago because being absolutely honest I remain to be convinced.
DeleteExcuse typos in last comment!
Deletebecause 23:55, it was and is. You may need to either leave or start revising your perspective, desistance theories are about to throw your comfortable us and them, punishment and enforcement little bubble out of the ball park.
DeleteIt wouldn't hurt to remind, or perhaps even find out, that it was many of those 'old' probation officers that invented the job you have now, all of it..oh and what has been done over the past 15 or so years is not actually showing up as that effective,prisons full, discriminatory practice on the rise, no solidarity so easy for the takeover... great job
2359 THANK YOU ! I can never reconcile how literally readers take this blog. Of course I have absolutely no truck with practice in the late 80 through the 90s Some idea of social model social intervention confidence building and day centre occupational support work including integrated baseline services. Many of us rejected the old Home office ideals and welcomed the CQSW as a way to integrate all the best of social reform by choice. The problem is that POs are their own worst enemy. Over complicating reinventing continual quest for the grail of the answer. Not once holding dear what many currently do now. I mean at the point of abandoning at the time practice for something new. We saw the programmes revolution destroy case management and lone case work. Priestly and McGuire rubbish. IT may work for some but we lost eclecticism for single shot beliefs. An industry born out of new language. Their on here with desistence . What they really mean is stop. Is it that POs just use overly complicated language to sound clever. In relation to the changing out of already good work practice. I have seen too many new brand managers on their way up looking to make change for the sake of wrecking a stable office. Well they did it really well this time. We have to take some responsibility for that. Compliance , discipline, regulation, maintenance and complicit attitude to do what we are told with open arms. Complicit neglect of what we already did was already the general best just wildly under resourced. Now the privateers are well cashed up and we are never going to be resourced to deliver anything that actually works. Except counting and figure fixing.
Delete23:51 - how does stating that public sector jobs, you know, the jobs Brits don't want to do, or the other catchphrase 'there are lots of myths about immigration', embody borderline racism?. Anti British racism, maybe - given that the majority of colleagues who have cut and run aren't eastern European or African. Our jobs are being re-defined. Just like traffic wardens and big issue sellers. It's happening. Celebrate Diversity!. Doesn't taste nice but eat it up.
ReplyDeleteHas there been any clarity on the email Ian Lawrence sent out about over 55s
ReplyDeleteOf course not.
Delete