An Obvious Disconnect

By Barry's logic any point of order that is not supported by other NEC members is by default a suppression of debate and thus subverts the democratic process. Many points of order have fallen at AGMs but these have not been seen as suppression, merely as indicative of a lack of support for the point of order.

It would be interesting if Barry could comment on the backstory of perhaps the two most experienced national reps – jointly or coincidentally – resigning.

On the vice-chair election, it is suggested we have had 'the debate'. I read the various manifestos that featured on this blog, but there was not much evidence of an actual debate occurring elsewhere. Any debate had has been on the pages of this blog, where the demand has been for an examination of the governance of Napo past and present, but these demands were not reflected in the candidate's manifestos.

As for the GS going. This was first rumoured on this blog last July. Napo may be dysfunctional at the top but it's dysfunctional right down to the bottom as well and so any wonder that the NEC has its flaws, too. Until there are some signs of an energised membership any new leader will have few followers. And as turnout figures tend to be closely guarded this suggests the membership remains passive and disengaged from workplace politics, never mind Napo's domestic politics. There is as much trouble at the bottom as there is at the top. It's too crude and simple to just scapegoat the leader. It is interesting how IL gets hammered but Ben Priestly of Unison isn't similarly traduced.

What ground has Napo held in the past five years? It has been a story of defeat after defeat. This goes beyond who happens to be the GS. Napo is losing ground all the time, it's losing members, its capacity to collectively bargain has possibly been irreparably damaged by Sodexo ability to deal directly with individuals. Controversies around the NEC, elected and paid officials, are footnotes in the decline of effective union representation in the probation service. And whilst IL will be blamed, seasoned trade unionists looking in from the outside will see that IL was always on a hiding to nothing, because there was no supportive membership base. Across the country anyone with any knowledge of branch activities will tell you that member apathy is the problem.

******
Some good points well made there as always. I agree it is too simplistic and crude just to focus on the GS. Member apathy is a big problem and also the view that a top level legal solution is the only way. I didn't see thousands out there on the picket lines and a commitment to other industrial action when it would have made a real difference. Collective action from a position of strength is actually quite effective as the London Mayor and TFL have learned to their cost and actually what trade unionism is about. A patchy halfhearted protest can be dismissed. As any person who plays team sports knows you can have the most enthusiastic captain with a great strategy possible but if the rest of the players are apathetic, leave others to do the work and their heart isn't in it you will lose to a weaker team.

My job takes me around to quite a few offices. There is lots of complaining going on but when you suggest that those complaining join the union and organise they say the union has done nothing for them (some saying this have actually never been members). Surely if you want something to change then you don't leave and abandon it? I mean who ever changed anything by resigning or not putting any effort in? In my view those who resign or leave the union are copping out and those who say they will only join if they get in trouble are foolish. What is needed is for collective action.

Sodexo know they can appeal to individual interests and greed but if we are united and act as a group then even they can't ignore that. Unfortunately probation staff are an apathetic bunch more concerned with who pinched their stapler and a seat by the window to look at the bigger picture or further down the line. It's often a case of I'm alright Jack. Well here we are further down the line and it is still dog eat dog instead of organising from the ground floor up and in sufficient numbers that our voices cannot be silenced and our leaders can speak with the backing of sufficient numbers. We get the leaders we deserve if we don't get involved, stop whinging and whining, and take some collective interest in our profession and those who would destroy it entirely.

******
I think Barry has made a point that the debate over elections is had in that process of statement that says it all really, we put our futures in the hands of what we read and then expect them to know what they are doing. Newsflash they clearly don't know what to do and it reads clearly they have all joined a game of hide the truth supported by a few incredibly poor misjudged NEC reps and in-crowd.

It may not help, recrimination or blame, yet it cannot be ignored as a natural reaction to being deceived, if that is the case as being alluded to here. I would like to see the evidence if there is any as mentioned in the minutes of the NEC. If correspondence were received at Napo, then why were the chairs not party to it? Clearly it would be a Chairs issue and clearly had Dean Rogers been sent it, he is obliged to share it appropriately with the Chairs for their decision. If Dean Rogers is the game of sharp practices already, he is most certainly not fit for a GS stand-in role if there is any truth that Ian Lawrence has had enough failures and members resignations to give him a clue to leave.

In all matters this is not a good open debate and the readers here will be the employers. I am perhaps open too but what else can we do? Censorship on the tumbleweed forum at Napo is likely. If Ian Lawrence is to go, Mr Rogers should think about his own position as he could not be number 2 to a new GS and we certainly do not need anymore of the likes or mates of Ian Lawrence, they helped him make this mess after all.

Ian Lawrence came under pressure from this blog and a few members who had some idea that we need to take a legal case. Problem is he left it, left it, left it, left it Oh too late have to use the slimmest and smallest bits now as he fell out of time. The story on what really happened is not really understood as it's only him and the Chairs telling us. No records checked, no minutes, no formal statements. No trust. The fact that this sort of commentary is taking place is an indication of the abscess top table have become under the leadership. One out, all out as they get malignant.

******
The GS is an employee and his employers are the NEC. Has he breached his contract of employment? No. Is he subject to a performance/capability process? No. He turns up to work and does his bit. The NEC have not said they have no confidence in him and they have access to more info than we do. There has not been a motion calling for a vote of no confidence from members. You can't simply call for him to be sacked. You can't vote that he be removed if he hasn't done anything wrong. He is an employee and has rights. I doubt he takes that much notice of this blog as he is more interested in what comes to him through his discussions with his staff and communication with branch chairs and the reality of dealing with the reality. He may decide to resign because he has had enough or for other reasons. That is entirely a matter for him.

******
What you systematically fail to grasp is that Barry is obviously making the point that no debate no matter what is side lined by tactics of the officers and officials. Any defence of them for this is anti democratic. It is clear to me at least, the above wants to be the General Secretaries defence, but look at what sharp practices have been deployed to avoid accounting to membership. Just because they move on in NEC, disinterested, unread or under the influence, is not taking the role properly. If Barry is unpopular at NEC, that does not mean to say they should ignore what he is alerting members to and why. That is the sort of amazing ignorance that has seen this officers group lead us to catastrophe and there is more misery to come.

******
It remains to be seen whether a new GS will breed confidence and enthusiasm into the membership. Ian Lawrence has never been able to engage the masses, possibly due to an aloof attitude or because he is too busy having his ego massaged, rubbing shoulders with the elite and then discussing how best to make 600 staff unemployed. It is clear people have lost confidence and the catalogue of failures behind Mr Lawrence will not have helped the situation. He was always ambition over his ability and it is right that he should stand down. A new GS will have mountains to climb, but the job has never been easy, hence the vast salary paid. Looking forward with hope and the possibility of progress to come under new management. Perhaps the new GS will also look at the NEC membership and take advice from the poster where people are required to justify their role within it.

******
Some good points well put. The problem with NAPO is it is confused with wanting to be seen as a professional operation, failing to grasp this is not what a trade union is about. Too many ingress staff doing all sorts of work has diluted the job to a sell off. Successive failures to defend all workers and all posts is what led to the split before it actually happened. POs only appear happy when they select a PO, but that does not make them able trade unionists.

Look at the incredible implosion of the untested and what was patently clear incapable Tom Rendon. It has not improved and the union has moved into a slide and any more under Mr Lawrence a fall off the cliff. I think you're right though, activists should have a good honest pedigree; too many of the people in power are there by luck and nothing to do with genuine trade union solidarity. I read the criticism of the Probation Institute yet Napo are funding the treasurers attendance and the national official. We effectively support TR and therefore have helped and continue to see the Sodexo staff get dismissed.

******
Napo has long been an exclusive club which has exorcised & discouraged many 'ordinary' members in order to secure a 'cool' core of reps, officials & officers. My life in Napo ended after I was vilified by others in positions of office whilst trying to debate the issue of clearly defined PSO role boundaries. As a straight white male PSO I was subjected to a level of abuse & humiliation that should not have been tolerated anywhere let alone in a union meeting, but ranks closed. I left the union. The alternative path I followed has been equally ineffective during the last few months of disgracefully poor representation of members' interests.

I feel the Napo problem has been a 'perfect storm' of poor communication & disinformation, keeping members at arms length, relying on the myth of the GS having charisma & specialist union skills, the aftermath of LedgerGate & naivety about Grayling's capacity to see TR through.

On this basis it is totally unsurprising that the unions have not been trusted, that members have defected or defied union guidance, and as a result have been left at the mercy of Sodexo & their ilk. Two years ago I'd have been incandescent about strike breakers or those balking, but now I can't point my finger at anyone other than those officials who were paid to but failed to represent our best interests & protect us to the best of their ability as Trades Unions.

They were distracted by their own importance, blinded by pomp & led into the rose garden - where they were professionally neutralised. It was all over when the loopholes & caveats were agreed in the National Agreement on transfer. Sherries all round?

Let people now salvage what they can for themselves.

******
Yes agree, but do not forget the PO failure has dragged every PSO into the failure and loss. We have no voice in NAPO and are disregarded at every level. POs are in for a shock with so few in the CRCs and as some of us in the NPS are more marginalised than ever. Still I would like to see a union that has my money and treats me with equal weight in future. What has past is over and PO grade means nothing. I just want my rights and union to fight for them. Reading what this PSO reports is really bad and NAPO you need to wake up to the new reality, we are all workers and the snobbery, time to stop it.

******

Ledgergate certainly dealt a crippling blow that allowed seasoned opportunists like Lawro to take advantage of the chaos. Don't forget we had Rendongate too. And now we may have Anyexitgate as the stampede to get out picks up pace before the inevitable collapse.

******

The bit I took from Barry's letter is that he perhaps gives a little more substance to the rumour that the GS is about to step down and get his miners lamp. Does anyone know if one has been ordered? There will then be vacancy and I understand Dean Rogers is currently being briefed to act up with a view to taking over the reins when his friend shuffles off stage left.

******
Thank you. If that rumour is true the plan should be exposed. The whole point about members lack of trust relates to this type of nepotism. NAPO needs someone NEW, not another selected from the existing GS supporters. What can be done to highlight this further mis-carriage of justice? What is going on here? This is NOT democratic process. Is there anyone courageous enough to bring the Dean Rogers issue to AGM.

******
NAPO's failure is down to all at HQ who have simply NOT been honest with members, hiding behind the guise of can't say, won't say on too many occasions. There are members who I trusted wholeheartedly when appointed that have taken the same party line. My subscriptions, my membership, my representation - I have a right to know as do all paid up members. That is why I am not signing my direct debit - nothing to do with failed fight against TR or anything else - purely down to refusal to be honest and openly communicate with membership.

******
I think you've encapsulated the whole debacle. If you hired a legal representative who kept telling you that there was information they can't or won't share with you and your liberty was at stake, you'd drop them like a stone. The membership wound up sleepwalking into a catastrophe. Some day, in a couple of generations, people will wise up again. Unions will again be appreciated for what they can achieve. I fear though, that rehabilitation itself may be ultimately dismissed as a concept in the long haul. I really do. NAPO. RIP.

******
Napo are supposed to lead members, alert us to the issues as they see the horizon. I think Ian Lawrence is generally not capable of very much. A lot of blow hard and lack of doing. Almost forgivable, but what is not is that he is unable to actually look at the longer term issues. A small misjudgement here has a disastrous outcome there. This is what happens when he joins the group who were designing the TR. It has been said already. Once in the wrong camp he sealed our futures. Worst of all, he has had to lie and wriggle to avoid the painful truths. Claiming all sorts of confidences with the officers who are weak and not able trade unionists. Buying into his schoolboy self protections. They fail to look at him objectively as you would a client. His rationalisations are similar to any behaviours that is seeking to hide the truth. A capable leader would be open, honest and share at best his teams thoughts on the most hopeful future directions and seek regular mandates to go that way.

In fact the NEC have been lied to. Papers, letters hidden and obfuscated by the twin chairs who are now embroiled in what appears to be assisting a cover up to avoid telling the truth to the NEC? They will have to face the AGM shortly and there should be some trouble as we discover the truth behind Dean Rogers smoke and mirrors proposals. These were rejected at NEC and now they are back hidden in the form of the officers group report. Lets see the evidence Barry Adams says is there. The other trouble for the Napo team is they are all inexperienced and so they look to Ian Lawrence and the whip Dean Rogers for support. There you have the perfect Clapham junction mess. Strawberry's all over the place, none of them have any cream.

******
Ian Lawrence should have found his way to branches and talked quietly to members. He should have listened instead of chest beating. “I am going to do this, that" and nothing. He could have tried to understand the real fears of all grades and united them as both workers and anti the ideology of a split. He should have ordered his staff and officers to assist in a political education of getting out to members to ensure they all had a feeling of support. He could have taken legal challenge over the attack on Trade union facilities time and asked an independent to decide how out of kilter with industrial relations were with Cabinet office rubbish.

The collapsible Mr Rendon should have been formally requested to substantiate his position or withdraw his slurs at Ian Lawrence for bullying him out. Citing professional difference is ridiculous as no one appeared to see through this. They were together for the same reasons anti-cuts, anti-privatisation, workers protections and trade union common interests. Now what else in the relationship was more important than national collective bargaining? Ego and Ego no doubt. It is little surprise that Ian Lawrence would have knocked the little lad out for 10 count, but neither of them able to focus on the reputational damage it did to Napo. Tom Rendon’s departure was no less scandalous than the last General Secretary. Yet surprisingly it was glossed over by the officers?

None of this is going to be a revelation, but the readers of this blog, the employers the government officials cabinet office and the like, they could sense Napo disarray and the lack of militated court actions. The worry over cash flow and the declining membership base of the scandal hit union. They only had to count check off and work out an approximate outgoing for our finances and could see the attrition rate gave Napo a costed shelf life of a few years. NO prospects of a long campaign and zero chance of funding a decent legal battle.

It is arguable had Ian Lawrence put in the groundwork personally on a branches rank and file tour he would have garnered supporters who would have stayed in NAPO. Instead, as many have gone to NPS and some consumed by the status of public service and now Civil Servants, they left the trappings of the Union behind as it was failing to represent them. Any sensible General Secretary should have been able to see through the Governments seduction of promised land and alerted members. Instead we had a lot of poorly considered advice about lodging grievances and wasting our time than actually stopping work.

Enough of the retrospective, what now? It is rumoured Ian has a Job and is set to tell us next month at the AGM. Congratulations might be in order then and lets hope so, he will be going and now is the right time given where we are. No one else could make it any worse, so long as they are new, independent and not connected to the total failure of this leadership. Dean Rogers could not be the next General Secretary as he has played his part in this mess and is inextricably linked to Ian Lawrence’s failed strategy. If Ian Lawrence really is to go then lets hope he announces now and starts the process of election for a new GS. Napo can start afresh. A competition by all means, no gap in leadership. We should avoid acting up incumbents in NAPO, they have an advantage at election as we have seen.

Cynically we should all be alert to the tactic that Ian Lawrence may be banking on. “Back me or sack me” rubbish. If he looks to sympathetic views from the AGM and raises a few arhhs then he might try and play a line out. Next there will be a speech "well if the members want me to stay who am I to refuse their generous care and sympathy for my position" Well lets hope not on this occasion, it is time to see the end of this GS on this watch once and for all.

--oo00oo--

This is a fair observation by the Napo Officers. It's not what you say, it's how you say it and so I agree with the main point of the Note. I would add that in addition to personal abuse of Napo staff, there have been unpleasant comments from posters being abusive to other posters. As regards the secondary point of raising issues through Napo's own channels, Napo itself raises issues through social media. As for anonymity, in today's workplace that's known as self-preservation. Just as governments can be pressured to rethink their policies and activities when issues of concern are raised through petitions, Napo can respond to issues, if it wishes, through channels other than those it controls. On the day that vice-chairs are elected on a turnout of 13.1%, Napo should seek engagement with member's issues wherever they are raised.

******
Wrong. NAPO have had plenty of opportunity to respond to issues raised in a form of engagement with views on this blog. There's zero view or interest in the NAPO forum, yet bizarrely there are many informed NAPO member views here. It is because there is a less restrictive mood here for people to say what they feel than be exposed or censored off the NAPO site. Anonymity is a protection we all need in NPS these days. If you want to engage members issues, NAPO there are hundreds of Napo questions posed on this site. Start anywhere, acknowledge the blog and start posting some answers.

******
Clear and democratic? Transparent and attributable? If this was the case why does no one seem to be using them? Whatever they are!

******
I don't condone abuse of any sort including the abuse of power. Whilst the officers are asking for self reflection and order and quite rightly so, it is also the time for officers to consider the abuse of power by the hand of NAPO officials and officers. In case anyone is not certain about what I refer to it would be the inappropriate misuse of power to suspend NEC reps, misuse of power to exclude individuals and suppress views and opinions for democratic debate, not forgetting collusion to increase the level of power to minimise and deny facts. Abuse comes in many forms.

******
Well said. The action to suspend NEC reps was an amazingly poor judgement. That pair went on to their own miseries by their own hands. One applied for an ACO role. No way whilst in mid TR battle. The membership would have taken action, but that oppression is ever present from top table. The way they manage is not maintaining order, it is something else. The other had massive failings that fortunately she had resigned. None the less the action to rid NAPO of these problems is always too slow and the complicit nature of the General Secretary was a factor. That soon turned into fact after bullying Joanna and the ex Chair. No matter how poor he was, the issues should have been dealt with through the employers sub committee.

It is too late to cry wolf NAPO, you have made the bed. Closing off the NEC reps from a shared email group to ensure they cannot have a collective memory of events and to make damn sure they could not circulate, debate issues, to ensure the Top table were accountable and to gather support for direction, is what is centrally responsible for the mess you are have made. Mr Lawrence allowed it and it was called a data protection matter. Nonsense it is plain censorship. Come on Napo, carry on attacking the wage payers of your salaries. Telling us we are apathetic when its gone wrong. You have reduced this union to anything but member. You!

******
Hang on let me get this right. The NAPO Officers Group are “concerned about the increasingly personal and abusive comments” on social media. Wow, are these people for real? Here we are in the midst of a massive attack on probation. People have been shitted on, treated like dirt, abandoned on the scrap heap and they talk about being concerned about comments on social media.

“In our view, such forms of communication are not only totally unacceptable but are directly contrary to one of Napo's stated aims and values, of treating people with mutual respect and dignity.” – I wish they could have said the same for the way many members feel who have been treated like crap by it’s union they trusted to uphold the same values rather than selling us out.

My final comment – how dare they lecture me about a democratic channel when they got into Graylings bed by supporting the Probation Institute. Corruption comes to mind.

******
Too right I support that. They are scared of being caught out. Something in this blog has got too close and perhaps some of them should resign fast.

******
OH No! Comment Police are coming next. There has been some out of order statements. Some have been comedy or closer criticism. However, the job is not all flowers ribbon cutting, kissing and hugging babies. The Napo officials are in a public open role, they would all grab a photo shoot when it is a positive chance to show off. The reverse is the questioning when things are disastrously wrong. The double standard is being applied here as they never balked when others named or have been totally slated.

I suspect for some they snigger and don't care, yet now its closer to holding them to real account, it appears a fearful risk to being found wanting. Take a look at the potential cover up over the issues raised by one of the NEC members. Naming no names, but we have published minutes of the Napo chairs not seeing documents, not sent them by the official. Something is adrift and an explanation has to be sought. This is because there are many views unable to express in what might be an oppressive sounding top table. We had read a well known resigned POs account of aggressive treatment from apologetic GS. It is all poor conduct and something NAPO need to understand. In the day of instant communication there can be no hidden agendas.

******
I think they are deflecting from the NEC scandal on the way they fiddle the changes through the Officer group report that takes all of them. If the proposals were rejected, then why was it not rescheduled properly and rewritten? Napo answers are welcomed here to engage members issues.