Ballot Result

A member reflects:-

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.