Probation is in crisis, so it is shocking that the Napo ballot turnout was only 44.82%, falling just short of the 50% required. Shocking, but not surprising. The blame lies squarely with the probation unions, not with the demographic that makes up today’s workforce.
On a Probation Facebook group I read, “I think Napo did a great job of marketing this campaign.” - I can assure you, it did not. Other comments were telling: “I’ve been too busy to complete the ballot paper” or “What’s the point of striking when you’re just rearranging your cases for the next day?” These aren’t signs of laziness, they’re signs of disillusionment.
When I was a young whippersnapper in my first jobs, I was taught the benefits of joining a trade union, and that if a strike was on the cards, it was your moral duty to take part. I don’t see that drive in probation today, and this isn’t the fault of new recruits. It’s the fault of Napo, Unison, and GMB.
Napo itself is a shadow of its former self. Once the National Association of Probation Officers, today its acronym means nothing. Napo and Unison waste energy competing against each other for members and reputation, while GMB plays the quiet role of “union for senior managers.” None of them deliver what probation truly needs.
It was Napo’s ballot. Returning a ballot paper isn’t difficult. The real issue is that the union couldn’t motivate enough of its own members to vote. Where were the roadshows? The rallies of reps? The campaigns beyond a few member outlets? Where was the coordination with so-called sister unions like Unison and GMB?
I can’t remember the last time I saw a strong Napo rep in a probation office, simply being present. Too often they carry a poor reputation, sneaky, gossipy, offering appalling advice. I stay in Napo more out of nostalgia than conviction. If I ever needed real legal advice or representation, I’d go to an employment solicitor.
Probation is in crisis, yet the unions aren’t even in first gear. The problem with Napo isn’t the members, it’s those running it. No wonder the vote failed. And please, spare me the line “a union is only as good as its members.” That’s lazy nonsense. If leaders and reps are invisible, uninspiring, or incompetent, it makes no difference how willing members are, their energy goes nowhere. Leadership sets the tone, and when leadership fails, the union fails.
This phrase is often trotted out to deflect responsibility, but it’s misleading. A union relies on both engaged members and effective leadership. Leaders and local reps are the ones who set priorities, build campaigns, and create opportunities for involvement. If they’re absent or demotivated, member enthusiasm is stifled before it even starts. When leadership fails to mobilise, communicate, or inspire, it’s no surprise when participation collapses. Blaming the membership only distracts from the real issue: weak, disconnected, and unaccountable leadership.
And then, to top it off, I read the Chief PO’s Probation Day message, a double-barrelled flourish referencing the 1907 Probation Act and its motto: Advise, Assist and Befriend. What a cheek to throw that in our faces while silently overseeing the decimation of probation, fully aware that not even the unions can save us. The failed ballot result has only confirmed that.
I get what OP is trying to say, but it doesn’t change the fact that the cast number of members who didn’t vote have ultimately made the union weaker in negotiations. Had we even gotten through a vote of action just less than striking that would have given more ammunition to take to the employer. I think anyone who didn’t vote has ultimately shot all of us in the foot.
ReplyDeleteThey have every right to complain about how the union handled the ballot vote, it doesn’t change the fact that all members had to do was put an x in some boxes and send off their ballot for counting, hardly a mammoth task. I do wonder what the make-up of the non voting cohort was, are they staff members who are no longer in operational roles, so they don’t get the brunt of the workloads anymore.
NAPO is far from perfect, and I’ll be the first to say that Ian Lawrence dropped the ball with his seemingly single mention in BBC news when the 10k figure was released and a 5 minute interview on radio 4 where he finally talked about strike action. Members can say they have voted because they’re disillusioned but all they’ve done is make us all weaker at the negotiation table and enable HMPPS to continue to have unreasonable working conditions where staff on the front line are treated awfully. If we can’t even agree to show our employer that we won’t be subject to this then why in the world are people complaining!
napo has been in lockstep with noms/hmpps/moj since 2008, i.e. co-terminus with the implementation of trusts/empowerment of local management/retirement of judy mcknight. Members have been sold out at every turn since, beginning with loss of Ts&Cs, pay freezes, dissolution of role boundaries, etc. The string of failures & shameful events that followed simply snowballed in the hands of total fuckwits whose bank accounts were/are generously filled with members' subscriptions; members who get no return on their investment.
DeleteA 45% turnout is not "just short", its embarassing, its indicative of the lack of interest/trust in the union & likely deemed 'a result' by the sham organisation masquerading as a 'union'... it means they can continue their remote nonsensical electronic tub-thumping while not having to deal with any *real* confrontation.
Someone yesterday posted a single line that sums up the world of today:
"Young people want more money too !"
Well, maybe you can just 'manifest' it?
Once again this raises the issue of the General Secretary and begs the question, ‘does he have a mandate.’
ReplyDeletePerhaps a new ballot should be run calling for a vote of no confidence.