Friday, 20 May 2016

Latest From Napo 106

Here's an extract from the latest blog post from Napo's General Secretary:-

E3 - what happens next?

A week ago we issued news of the agreement that we had reached with NOMS on how the planned implementation of E3 is to be carried out. I am grateful for the feedback that a number of you have sent which, largely, appreciates the work that we have undertaken in the areas of no compulsory redundancy, pay protection and future job placement. Amongst this there have been questions along the lines of 'why has Napo agreed to all of the aspects of E3? The answer is that we have not; and as I attempt to explain below your union is leading the charge against some aspects of the programme that we seriously doubt will work in the way intended if at all.

Napo have collectively been involved in three distinct pieces of work relating to E3. In our mailing to members we reported on the important negotiations resulting in protections for any members who might be adversely affected by E3 despite our considerable efforts to prevent this.

At the same time as securing those agreements we have been vigorously challenging the outcome of the E3 job evaluation process for Victim Liaison Officers and Approved Premises staff. It is our view that this process was flawed and important elements of some roles were missed out or misinterpreted leading to anomalous outcomes. Members from those groups have provided invaluable support in helping us gather the relevant evidence to robustly challenge the earlier exercise. We will be following this up with NOMS before new panels are convened over the course of late June and early July.

The other strand of E3 work is the consultation on the proposed operating model. To clarify the process, this was issued to the trade unions at the same time as all staff in the NPS at the start of a period of consultation. That consultation closed recently and now we await further discussion with the employers in light of our excellent response which I have linked below. Our aim is to secure amendments and clarifications to the proposed model through further consultation and negotiation.

Members can be assured that we have and will continue to discuss the specific issues that have been and are still being raised through through branches. The attached document is the core of our response to the consultation, this has been distilled from all of the information brought to us by members as well as input from your elected Officers. The discussions around implementation of E3 will continue, through our established structures and members should feed any concerns to their branches so that we can take these up in either in the regular consultation with senior NOMS management or via the negotiating process.

Obviously, there are still many elements of the E3 operating model that raise concerns for members and nobody here is able to say that we have all the answers to them given the magnitude of the E3 operational change programme. As you would expect we are prioritising these in terms of potential threats to your terms and conditions as well as the key professional issues that are before us. This is a significant piece of work and the situation is rapidly changing, so remember to get in touch with your branch with any concerns and look out for more updates as the talks progress. Officers and Officials cannot visit every single workplace but if Branches can organise specific gatherings of members we will do our best to be there.

Storm brewing over Short Format reports

If proof were needed that all is not bottomed out in E3 then the ongoing dialogue about who should undertake PSR's and what they ought to contain is right up there.

A meeting between Napo and the Magistrates Association yesterday revealed that the MOJ missive for all non-High Risk PSR's to be undertaken as short format reports has hardly filled the judiciary with confidence.

Our submission to the E3 consultation makes it patently clear that there are already concerns among experienced Court OMs that their views on the type of PSR required for the particular circumstances are being overridden by the drive to achieve unrealistic targets.

During the E3 discussions we have tried to maintain a line which says that the same protections should be offered to PSOs working in Court as those working in Community Supervision Teams, and that staff should only undertake assessments on cases which are reserved to POs in the tiering model if they are appropriately qualified and remunerated as a PO.

We have also made it clear that PSO's and PO's must only undertake work that they are trained to do and that what the department is trying to do to save costs is simply unsafe. This is an issue that we have already flagged up with the Secretary of State in advance of our meeting with him next month and it has featured highly during our continual engagement with senior NOMS management.

21 comments:

  1. Probation Officer20 May 2016 at 18:30

    Despite the "consultation and negotiation" E3 is already being implemented. These noises from Napo mean nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "and that staff should only undertake assessments on cases which are reserved to POs in the tiering model if they are appropriately qualified and remunerated as a PO."

    What does "appropriately qualified" mean? In the next paragraph Napo states "PSO's and PO's must only undertake work that they are trained to do". I'm not sure if Napo is saying PSR writes should be appropriately qualified, or appropriately qualified AS A PO?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PO's are appropriately qualified to write PSRs - PSO' s are not and should never have been allowed to do so. Any other view undermines wholesale the PO position. NAPO over the years, in its attempt to be inclusive, has undermined the PO's status, which has made it easier for the current nonsense to be ushered in. Sorry if the above is unpalatable, but it's true. Also, I am sick of listening to PSO' s in my office refer to themselves as PO's on the phone. You can bet your bottom dollar social workers don't tolerate SW assistants using their title!

      Delete
    2. "social worker" isa protected title. Hence non social workers referring to themselves as such would be unlawful

      Delete
  3. Jim youre a fool

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Explain? If I had managed a blog that was heading up 4 million hits and somehow balanced a diverse set of views and yet was the most significant form of mass resistance to TR then fool is not the word I would use to describe him.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. Being PO does not necessarily make one a great report writer. Being a PSO does not mean you are not good at report writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh not this again... please!

      Delete
    2. Yes I could do a better job than quite a few defence solicitors in Magistrate's Court but think of the mess that would ensue if I and others could make my living that way without qualification.

      Delete
    3. Yes but being a qualified probation officer makes one qualified to write pre sentence reports. That is the point - QUALIFIED!! Napo's position should therefore clearly be that ONLY qualified PO's are "appropriately qualified" to write PSR's. It is this annoying absence on clarity on role boundaries that has allowed E3 to come about.

      Delete
    4. Rubbish weak po led to tr apathetic attitudes. E3 the end game. Po thing of the past. Pso the obvious cheaper choice and efficient no drama no snobbery. Grow up po you as a group just not able to act effectively unlike the pso vlo who get mentioned for having the fight on pay. Pos doing nothing on role boundary there is your answer

      Delete
    5. @Anon 23:40 Being a PSO means you are not paid for the responsibility of writing reports... If you clamour for this extra duty simply out of a foolish pride, you're not only hurting yourself, but all those who are trying to maintain the role boundaries.

      Delete
    6. I was once told by long standing member of the NUT, that he thought the reason their union was so strong was because it was only made up of teachers; teaching assistants and ancillary staff were excluded. This kept the focus strictly on issues facing teachers. NAPO should have stayed the same - a union just for POs, fighting for issues that affected just them. We might have stood a chance then.

      Delete
  5. Ive a decade as a manager and progressed to leadership so I'm fit to comment. The difference between POs and PSOs is that PSOs can't quite cut the mustard of being a PO so they stay as a PSO offer an invaluable bit service

    ReplyDelete
  6. 8.27 if that's your attitude as a Manager / Leader it's no wonder we were privatised in the first place! All this PO -v- PSO, classic divide & conquer techniques, the Govt have played a blinder and we helped them by playing straight into their hands with all this 'in-house' bickering! NHS & Education have fought together, not each other. In my mind our 'Leaders' have a lot to answer for!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's even see if the NPS can implement E3. There's not enough staff, not enough PSO's, not enough trainers and managers to develop new PSO's, not enough report writers, not enough social workers and retirees prepared to return to probation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And many PO's do not want to transfer to demanding Court teams where the magistrate is king or to festering unsafe prisons. How long until the NPS is bankrupt from paying for sessional reports? Even worse, what happens when PO's decide they no longer want to write sessional reports and the Courts decide they no longer want to recognise short-format tick box reports, or those written by unqualified probation officers ie PSO's. Yes E3 may be over sooner than we think!!

      Delete
  8. E3 will work. Dont let others on this blog convince you Otherwise. E3 has so much potential and is much needed given the shakeup needed accross the NPS spread

    ReplyDelete
  9. E3 is already dead in the water and the managers are already saying this. Larger city areas will struggle to implement the model. We've seen this happen so many times before. See anon 11:17 & 11:25, so true.

    ReplyDelete
  10. NPS is asking for permission to change my employment contract, what do i do?

    ReplyDelete