Sunday 20 November 2016

Pick of the Week 20

What a disaster of an interview. It was PR gold handed on a plate which the GS managed to spill on the floor. Body language, tone & presentation was of someone not remotely interested, almost bored; the interviewer was more animated and appeared disappointed his enthusiasm wasn't reciprocated. It wasn't so long ago that Napo agreed NOT to use the term 'offender' but in reference to Sodexo's open plan policy the interviewer quotes the term "service users" and asks if that means Napo members: "No, no. Offenders" smirks Lawrence. 

He didn't give any impression of a leader of a union whose members are being shafted inside out, upside down & back to front; whose members have been fucked over day after day for the last ten years. Disgraceful, cringemaking, amateurish twaddle. £70K a year... Really??

*****
I have to say I gave up watching the video half way through in disgust. The interviewer was handing Ian prime questions that should have received a blistering response however he managed to sidestep many of them and waffle through the rest. Didn't sound like a Trade Unionist to me - disgruntled privateer more like. What a wasted opportunity.

*****
So that's one giant leap for the General Secretary's ego. So many opportunities handed to him on a plate about financial concerns, no mention of staff being robbed of EVR, pensions, whole life careers carelessly thrown away to save a shilling and then him appearing to welcome the privateers changes, staff pay, terms and conditions being eroded as long as they receive appropriate training! 


No mention of PO status being lost whilst the duties are passed to PSO grade, with no recognition or remuneration - as long as they are trained? The man needs to go, he is a fool and can't protect any of us with that attitude. He hasn't fought or successfully defended one action against TR - he admitted as much in the interview. His reputation is weak, vain and compliant and the privateers love him. He only talks a good job. Ambition way above ability and eager to preen like a peacock and drink like a fish. In the same mould as others who have been GS of NAPO and have gone down in history achieving nothing.

*****
Publicity for our cause is hard come by. Brexit, Trumpet being news headlines that have swamped the media headlines for what seems like forever. However, if we do not keep the beacons alight we will fail. Change is, I sense, is in the air. Let's us keep the flames burning. People are starting to cast their gaze in our direction.

*****
They may well look but the light house of Ian Lawrence will not shine on anything after that performance more like a defective bulb. From what I saw at least. We need a speaker who is a challenging force not a wannabe look a like intellect he certainly is not that. Not even a huff and a puff.

*****
Mr Lawrence is a poor advocate for the Probation Service and values. I agree, he missed a number of opportunities to be bold and forthright and that is to say nothing of his seemingly bored presentation.

*****
As someone who lived through the Voluntary Severance travesty by Sodexo last year can I offer some thoughts to those SW CRC staff caught in the should I/shouldn't I trap?

1. Staff didn't have any positive union backing in the form you have, no talks & certainly no ACAS. It does sound like lessons have been learned by the unions & local activism is very impressive.
2. Staff were mercilessly bullied by Sodexo via local collaborators, the fear & distress for staff being evident as timescales shortened, at which point levels of anger & resentment were very high.
3. The VS agreement was exceptionally restrictive, a straight jacket & gag to keep people under control & silent. Even backdated pay rises were lost.
4. The VS agreement was an insult, but some felt it was better than being managed out the back door under Sodexo disciplinary procedures - an implied threat from some of Sodexo's cutest operators.
5. The SW CRC staff have strong union support & the matter has reached ACAS, with the Lurkers clearly not playing ball. The political climate is very different & Hindson has been levered out the door.

In the Sodexo situation I would have taken VS & cleared off. It was toxic, it was bitter & extremely damaging to peoples' health & well-being. However in your position, on balance I would stay & fight for the full EVR.

*****
Thank you for sharing, I hope CRC staff everywhere reflect on this and gain some strength in numbers, as it is an incredibly stressful situation. I for one, would never criticise or judge people for the decisions they make. We all have our own issues, and a disenfranchised workforce is unlikely to make progress where the unions have failed. I hope ACAS bring some pressure to bear on Aurelius/WL.

*****
Something often missed about the Sodexo scenario was that most of those taking VS were not union members, either because they had never been so or had left whichever union they were in due to their union's inaction & silence. The current SW CRCs have the benefit of very active & tenacious union work - clearly something being driven locally by vigorous, informed & passionate reps.

*****
Contrary to the sobbing, heartbroken Hindson who has been elbowed out it is perhaps worth remembering that in Sodexo's CLCRC both Chief Execs cleared out at the earliest opportunity - Big Bad Kev on the day before ownership transferred across (having done all the preliminary dirty work he presumably knew how much dirtier it was going to get?) and Bigger Badder Penny who saw off busloads of staff through the shitty VS debacle but didn't last much longer; both served about 18 months before baling with generous financial packages. Wonder if their treachery ever keeps them awake?

By contrast we have members of the POA today saying they would rather continue to protest and face jail terms than collude with or perpetuate dangerous conditions for prisoners & staff in the prisons estate. That is principled commitment.

*****
Well the health and safety aspect is a major part of the SW dispute. Our branch was well informed of the deliberate tactic of Working Links Hinson and all not to release the operational plan service design to the national unions or to share any local service arrangements properly. All played out now and the unions have not penetrated the wall of silence and game playing but they will in time I am told.

*****
Be in no doubt, Dino is beating them up, our dispute and move to ACAS would not have happened without his leadership. Read his branch reports on this blog. No other CRC has had the challenges Working Links have had. Grateful thanks to Dino and his reps I'm still employed for now.

*****
Aaaaaarrgggghhhh!!!! For a supposedly key figure in our criminal justice system Napo's GS displays a dire lack of understanding and poor judgement when he writes: "Their [Prison Officers] willingness to ‘walk off the job’ when it becomes absolutely intolerable (despite the ban on industrial action) is both brave and commendable, although the injunction awarding judges obviously don’t agree."

The 'injunction awarding judges' have no role in agreeing or disagreeing with the actions of prison staff; the judges' must simply consider & implement existing law. That is a keystone of our criminal justice system.

He compounds his crass comment when he haughtily observes: "Naturally the action has sparked the usual wave of hysterical analysis by the likes of the Daily Mail and Express whose front pages are full of rump stake [sic] and video games exposes..." Or criticising the judges who ruled on the law regarding a parliamentary vote to activate leaving Europe? Oops!

*****
Those members of Napo who feel the case for finding another General Secretary is getting stronger by the day, citing the recent woeful appearance on Russia Today, will have to make sure there is at least one other alternative candidate next year when he finds himself up for re-election. Be warned, there will be forces within the union, especially at the top, who will try and ensure that there is no viable alternative candidate and hence no election.

*****
So where is the bar currently set? Lacklustre, uninformed narcissist? Naive, over-ambitious wannabe? What's been achieved by the last two GS's? Pay freeze for years; loss of annual leave; loss of essential car user allowance; loss of definition between PO & PSO roles; loss of a national service; loss of £130k as a leaving present to disgraced GS; agreement to sifting; no resistance to Sodexo; no public image or media presence, except for cringeworthy bits & bats; loss of hundreds of members; self-aggrandising blogs.

*****
He is flanked by doe eyed women who think they are there to serve him. So they do. The AGM gave me the biggest insight over the way they all buckled up to try and deliver his desires and one was to get out of national bargaining.

*****
Is Dino or anyone else involved able to clarify what is meant by "there is just not enough reassurance for the protections on your terms that should be required by all the representatives involved.... there may be some talks attended for on Wednesday next week that will potentially look to address the concerns the unions have on the operational plans for the delivery of services."

In the early morning gloom it sounds like the battle for EVR has been lost (or sacrificed?) and the focus is elsewhere. I hope I am mis-reading the meaning.

*****
I know Dino and others are working very hard to keep the focus where it should be. It will be very convenient for WL to be distracted into minutiae and thereby sidestep the EVR/contractual questions that have been raised.

*****
"The upscaling and downgrading of risk cases to PSO" This is happening in the NPS too and PSO's are being actively recruited to replaced PO's. What is Napo doing about this?

*****
For the record I also have this concern. I am a Napo member. I have told my rep. The response is that Napo are well aware of PSO's set to take NPS work and jobs from PO's and are doing nothing about it as they have limited bargaining power with the MoJ and civil service. In fact Napo was involved in the E3 consultation that paved the way and already failed to challenge this point. It is rather shocking the same concern is being raised and challenged for the CRC but apparently ok and ignored for the NPS.

*****
E3 definitely agreed and supported by K Lomas vice chair NAPO, her advice is collusive with NPS at the very least, ambition above ability here. This reflects the GS and 2 anonymous, lazy chairs. There has got to be something better for our Union when election of the GS comes soon. Campaign to find someone worthy of £70 k salary Jim et al.

*****
In response, I would be very worried about Katie Lomas in case she fancies herself as the Next Napo Chair. She doesn't want National Collective Bargaining and so is essentially backing the job cuts and devastation to the CRC's, let alone the equivalent concerns in NPS. I agree - we need to get a campaign going for the next Chair and also suitable candidate for GS too.

*****
I am an employee of DDCCRC and a Napo member. From what I can see it is the local reps who have pushed for the matter to be addressed by Napo and in particular the SSW Branch. Who is the branch Chair - DINO. Reading through Branch Reports it states that NOMS Contract people were not available for the Joint Secs meeting. I can't see that they have yet contributed their view. It seems to me that Napo should be providing some legal advice in this matter to reps and members alike. I would urge Napo and Unison members to go to the Branch Meetings and request their Branches to take up local matters otherwise nothing will happen.

*****
Agreed we need new arm chairs but not like the current spring less and shabby pair. Any from the current field will not be a nice new sofa. A useless performance because of complicit complacency over the failure to support properly the VLOs and more lately the E3 sell off. No protections for us and there will be none for them when the time comes.

*****
Dino's message could be seen to imply that the concrete issues of terms & conditions of employment, EVR & a nationally agreed position are being sidelined to allow for the vagaries & distractions of re-examining "risk to the public" vis-a-vis "operational plans for delivery of service".

1. Is 'risk' really an issue for ACAS in respect of EVR?
2. Time is not on the side of those wanting a resolution to EVR.
3. Where is the NOMS contract manager?
4. What about the SoS's "golden share"?

*****
Yes, risk is most definitely an issue! These cuts are not justified and will increase the risks to staff, offenders and public alike. Staff will be at risk of burnout/ stress etc. Offenders will be at increased risk of offending and all the consequences that go with that (including ending up in custody = increased risk of death). Public will be at increased risk of harm through being inadequately protected by experienced staff who understand risk management. This is every ones responsibility so why should ACAS not see it as an issue?

*****
Fair enough, but... the bids were invited, designed around & awarded on the basis of significant reductions in staffing costs, hence the Modernisation Fund sweetener to cover the cost of paying off staff. I can't see ACAS having any impact upon that aspect of the CRC operational design because they will say that's what MoJ asked them to do. However, I don't think the greedy globals should be allowed to misappropriate the monies allocated for EVR.

No, I do NOT agree with the sale of probation, the staff shrinkage or the ideology and I do NOT believe the business model was ever going to work (beyond adding to offshore corporate bank balances), but... let the fuckers fail. Get the EVR for the staff, don't give them the oxygen of co-operation and let the fuckers publicly & spectacularly fall from grace.

Just watching the BET HipHop awards on MurdochVision & heard this from an award wining crew: "Look after each other, don't let them divide & rule."

*****
Hey, Probation was always wanting to be the boy with his finger plugging the hole in the dam. How about making those who commissioned or constructed the dam take some responsibility? 'Cos when you get tired and your finger goes limp, everyone will blame you for the subsequent disaster. This is how SFOs work, & this is how Probation got shafted.

Maybe its time to step away from the dam. Let the cracks show, let the blame for cutting corners, shoddy workmanship & utter incompetence rest where it belongs.

34 comments:

  1. Why hasn't the breach of contract by Working Links gone to the lawyers, that's what we pay for. Ian Lawrence is over his head and ability and wants to save the union funds for his redundancy, as will surely come with members leaving in droves due to his ineffective position. NAPO needs and deserves an individual worthy of the vast £70,000 salary who takes control not is controlled by the CRCs. He stifles local reps and blocks the progress they fight to achieve. Lets face it Mr Lawrence has no life time career invested here and will move on, hopefully sooner than later. He cannot understand the devastating impact being robbed of our EVR, pensions and erosion of terms and conditions as he has had none of it inflicted on his own terms. Good riddance to bad rubbish, bring on the election and find someone decent and capable Jim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm astonished to discover that Napo HQ has blocked the provision of legal advice in relation to the Working Links CRC dispute.

      Delete
    2. What breach of contract? If I recall correctly, Sodexo ran roughshod through the framework agreement and paid reduced EVR. They were condemned on moral, not legal grounds. It's easy to bash Napo, but instead of just throwing out the assumption that there has been a breach of contract, you should explain why you believe there has been a breach.

      Delete
    3. As I understand it legal representation would only come in when an individual (or group?)took their complaint to an Employment tribunal for (for example)unfair dismissal, breach of employment t&c but a tribunal wouldn't consider yr complaint if you hadn't tried negotiating first which seems to be what is happening including use of ACAS. It's a horribly long drawn out process

      Delete
    4. I said legal advice - not representation. Did Napo seek legal advice over Sodexo? No. I would have thought such expenditure was very definitely in the interests of members.

      Delete
    5. All we ars after from Ian Lawrence is categorical statement that he has run the contracts past Thompson's and they have confirmed there is no case to answer over our insistence on EVR, (or otherwise). Then we will know where we are. Currently, OUR reading (SSW branch) is that there IS a case to answer. And I, for one, want my (considerable) monthly subs to be used to pay for this legal advice. I have to admit I am completely flummoxed as to why this hasn't happened up til now. The fact the MoJ Contract Managers appear to have avoided the ACAS talks to date suggests there is something to hide and their position is not water tight.Because, if it were wouldn't you rush to prove the Union is wrong with the legal position? Simples!

      Delete
    6. Demand proof of legal advice having been sought, or the reasons why it hasn't!

      Delete
  2. It's shocking how Jim facilitates bullying against napo and napo officials on this thing I wouldn't even class as a blog. Disgraceful when napo HQ are working hard for you!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its called freedom of speech by the members, nothing to do with Jim. 11.58 is clearly worried about the disclosures of truth here on this public platform.

      Delete
    2. Asking a union to account for its actions is not bullyiing

      Delete
  3. Oh what a shower of shite. I was at london branches meeting Friday. Dean Rogers attended nice enough chap but not a trade unionist. Spoke of the positives of crc and made a pitiful comment about some members deserve being fired. I'm cancelling my membership come Monday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? What grounds did Dean cite for a NAPO member 'deserving' to be sacked?

      Delete
    2. Probably the same grounds he used for his extended absence from NAPO whilst spending members subs on his own unrelated education and personal development training. Pertinent that this remains unexplained whilst people defend his behaviour in an appearance at a branch meeting.

      Delete
    3. what is positive in a crc then napo 1239 if its so positive perhaps Rogers will job swap a week lets see what he says then

      Delete
  4. With regards to legal advice re potential breach of contract. They may want to discuss Torts law at the same time.

    Part of me thinks that any Judge may be more 'friendly' towards Probation rather than faceless multi-national companies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have heard on many ocassions the GS blaming members in Sodexo controlled CRC's for their redundancies. I can assure you he takes no responsibility for their demise and Dean the same mould. These two shower of shites want to throw members to the wolves and lay claims on the legal advice to support their inaction. NAPO is dead unless it gets rid of these 2 jerks but the chairs are never going to deal with that. Dont forget the members got what they voted for, turkeys for Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although shocking, sadly not surprising.

      Delete
    2. Some past exchanges with napo & their lawyers when I asked about the legal position regarding Sodexo, EVR & changes to contracts of employment:

      "If you impose a new contract unilaterally you will be in breach of contract and your employees may well:
      ●● make legal claims against the company for constructive dismissal if the breach is fundamental and significant
      ●● claim damages for breach of contract at a civil court
      ●● claim at an employment tribunal for unlawful deduction from wages if the change affects their pay."

      The above is taken from ACAS advice to employers about imposing contract changes without consultation or agreement. I asked Napo's lawyers to comment...

      "I cannot answer your questions about any advice given by Thompsons to napo. If you have any queries as a member of napo you should contact napo direct."

      So I did. After pages & pages of emails...

      "We are ourselves constantly reflecting on the legal position around what is a shifting situation. Sodexo are indeed seeking to avoid their contractual and moral obligations by avoiding 'redundancy'. We do not think this is sustainable or credible. However, their strategy is to coerce people into 'volunteering' for a variation in their contractual terms or risk not being able to escape. This is bullying and why Napo are urging members to reject the 'offer'."

      That was the closest to an answer I could get from Napo. Sadly more than enough non-union employees put their hands up for Sodexo VS & the whole issue "disappeared". The GS and anyone else blaming staff, & especially blaming union members, can take a running jump.

      Delete
  6. I love what is happening to napo members.this Is the consequence of your inactivity when it mattered and your constant turning on one another. You guys couldn't run a piss up in a brewery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When union members are hamstrung & left in limbo by what seems a union leadership intent on inactivity, then sadly you are right to observe that people become frustrated, angry & ineffective.

      During the Sodexo clearances I have often wondered if the Napo leadrship intentionally dragged their feet such that the VS option offered by the CRCs became the only guaranteed paid exit as compared to the insecurity & uncertainty of "will we win?"... thus Napo (as well as the CRCs) got rid of those troublesome old guard.

      The current SW scenario seems to be drifting in a similar direction.

      Delete
    2. Certainly reads like they are in the South-western from what 1407 has said well there has got to be reason and that can only help the employers can anyone tell what side the players are on in this situation?

      Delete
  7. 19:41 You have provided some very interesting light on several important issues. Firstly, exactly what legal advice was given to Napo at key stages, like the 'failed' JR? Secondly, how good was it? Thirdly, the degree of confidence that members have in the 'Top Table having decided to act appropriately on that advice and in the members best interest, rather than the Union. Some might well say that it's a given - others might feel very differently. All I know is that it has been said that the MoJ was staggered that no effective legal challenge to TR was mounted by Napo and there doesn't seem to be any hint of Napo getting the lawyers in now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Unfortunately, despite Selous' statements [remember the quote about EVR?] there does not appear to be much if any evidence of NOMS / NPS policing the contract. Indeed, there is some indication of the reverse and potential collusion at senior level during the contract negotiations. This leads now to much arse covering and very limited honesty or engagement with Napo around contract monitoring - something that has already been raised directly with Gove and others"

    This was said in summer 2015. Nothing happened in time to save EVR for members in Sodexo areas. So what's happened to pursue/resolve these concerns in the last 12 mnths?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, said by who in Summer 2015?

      Delete
    2. You do not need a union to take an ET and there are a few able people out there who will if they win a case or two and do what the unions failed to do you should all sue your unions instead.

      Delete
    3. In the information vacuum of 2015 I was pressing Napo for advice & guidance about the EVR issue. Branch officials couldn't offer any clarity so I emailed Napo HQ & this came back as part of the response. It was encouraging at the time, giving me some hope that wrongdoing would be uncovered & EVR would be honoured; but as we now know Napo was not enough to prevent the Sodexo VS offer being expedited at the expense of the contractually agreed EVR. In a 'lose-lose' situation I capitulated, took the least worst option & cleared off, unable to continue in the difficult working conditions of privatisation. It saddens me to read that, one year later, SW CRC staff are now facing a similar, equally difficult situation.

      Delete
    4. To clarify - Entry at 21:37 was in reply to JB's question at 20:56.

      Delete
  9. I got EVR and I deserved it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you did CPO ?

      Delete
    2. To 21:04 deserved? It was not set up to be given on "merit"!

      Delete
    3. All the years I put in deserved the amount I took out. That is all. It's only money. Don't be a slave to a piece of paper which can be torn. A piece of paper

      Delete
    4. It's okay for you to say as you have the "paper" already. I deserve the "paper" too for remaining at the coal face.

      Delete
    5. I agree Anon at 00.08 maybe that is where MOJ should start `FIXING' probation with a special pay award to long time staff. In 1980 Conservative Government gave an extra allowance to social workers in (I think) most of the metropolitan areas and probation workers got it too. There is a precedent.

      Delete