Monday, 9 February 2026

Thought Piece 8

I think what this thread has exposed isn’t just anger at one person or one union. It’s something deeper. It’s about probation staff feeling abandoned by EVERY layer of authority.

By management.
By policy-makers.
By inspectors.
By ministers.
And yes, by unions.

When people feel unheard and unprotected for long enough, distrust spreads everywhere. Leadership becomes a symbol for a much bigger loss of faith.

I don’t for one minute dismiss the criticism. Membership has fallen. Confidence has eroded. Some people have had poor experiences with reps. Some feel leadership hasn’t delivered. That frustration is real. But here’s the part that matters now. We have decisions coming up on pay and reform in the immediate term. Not in two years. Not after a hypothetical reset. Now.

If the argument is that the union is structurally compromised, then the obvious question is this.What is the concrete, time-bound alternative that increases leverage before the next pay round? Not a feeling. Not a verdict on personality. A plan.

Joining a different union fragments density further.
Leaving reduces bargaining weight.
Building a fourth union from scratch takes years.
Waiting for collapse is not strategy.

So what is the operational route that creates political or industrial risk in the next 6–12 months? Because power responds to risk. Risk comes from numbers, turnout and coordination. If we believe probation is pivotal to sentencing reform and prison capacity, then leverage only exists if it is organised and visible. Anger alone doesn’t create that. This isn’t about defending anyone’s salary or record. It’s about avoiding paralysis.

If leadership needs replacing, that requires members.If strategy needs rewriting, that requires mandate. If unity is the goal, it requires participation. Otherwise we stay exactly where we are which is divided, exhausted, and easier to manage than we'd like to think. I genuinely want to know what is the alternative that strengthens our hand before the next negotiation, not after it?

*******
1. Work your hours.
2. No overtime.
3. No late night reporting.
4. When re-allocated cases for those on sick or maternity, rack, pack and stack them. Prioritise your caseload and keep yourself sane.
5. Don’t take on SPOC roles.
6. Do everything within timescales.
7. Friday afternoon give your manager a list of the work you could not complete.
8. Remove the goodwill and let’s see how the management deal with that.
9. Everyone go on the sick and take at least six months.
10. Don’t feel guilty the management put you in this position.

*******
Love your thinking. However if you do this and then go off sick, you get victimised. Colleagues have gone through traumatising Performance Management processes for allegedly not being up to scratch and failing. Colleagues claimed in their defence that it was impossible to achieve all the dictates within contracted hours. Were told they just couldn't cut it. PDU heads and their deputies can be quite vindictive not realising they are not quite that clever despite it been brought to their attention regularly. Some clearly do not even know what ACAS is and what they do - God forbid. Employment Tribunal claims on their way and not done via NAPO either.

National Audit Office report late last year confirmed what we have been telling our esteemed employer all along. Mmmm... they underestimated the time things took despite us at the coalface telling them this consistently. They admitted it at the PAC hearings and then again decided to go against their own underestimation again and didn't deliberately correctly adjust the timings. Classic FU to their employees. Talk about deliberate perpetuation of Workplace Harm! Talk about government sanctioned Modern Day Slavery. They have no idea how to manage, don't care about their employees. If this was a private company the lot of them would have been given their P45s and would have walked out with a cardboard box of personal belongings, but no, they still in their positions and receiving performance bonuses. LIDL now pays more per hour for much less responsibility.

*******
I understand the instinct behind some of these suggestions. People are exhausted. They feel unheard. They feel cornered. But there’s a difference between withdrawing goodwill and detonating your own position.

Work to contract? Yes.
Stop unpaid overtime? Yes.
Document what can’t be completed? Absolutely.

That’s not rebellion. That’s professionalism. Mass resignations, coordinated sickness or banking on tribunals as a system reset isn’t strategy. It’s a series of individual risks in a system that has repeatedly shown it will protect itself first.

If this thread shows anything, it’s not laziness or cowardice. It’s something more serious, people don’t trust any layer of authority to protect them anymore. Not management. Not leadership. Not unions. That level of mistrust is dangerous in a public protection service. But fragmentation and individual legal battles won’t fix that mistrust. They confirm it.

If probation is genuinely pivotal to sentencing reform and prison capacity (and it is ) then leverage has to be credible, coordinated and collective. Not reactive. Boundaries are strength. Organisation is strength.Burning out one colleague at a time is not. If senior leaders are reading this, the message isn’t that staff want chaos. It’s that they feel abandoned. And that’s a far bigger warning sign.

18 comments:

  1. “PDU heads and their deputies can be quite vindictive..”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely not?

      A (now ex-) colleague was set to go on planned sick leave (important operation needed) & stayed late on her last day in the office to complete oasys/psr on a complex case. She left the documents open & emailed her manager saying she would appreciate her manager checking it over as it was late when she wrote it & she didn't want to miss anything important.
      When she returned from sick leave she found she was subject to disciplinary for not completing an allocated assessment & report and leaving her colleagues exposed to additonal incomplete work.
      She went to her emails... no email to her manager. She went to the oasys... her assessment didn't exist, but a new assessment & report by ANOther appeared.
      She spoke with her manager only to be told there were no such documents on the system, so she had clearly forgotten to do it and as it was a disciplinary matter it couldn't be discussed.
      She went to her union rep & explained what had happened, the rep said if there was no document there was no defence.
      She then produced copies of the assessment, report and email she had printed off before going on leave. The rep, she says, "looked aghast" and asked if they could take the copies to an urgent meeting with management. "Of course".
      Later that day she received a call from a senior manager saying the matter was not being pursued. She asked for the documents to be returned. "What documents?"
      She spoke again with her rep who told her the documents belonged to the service and there was no longer a disciplinary matter to be considered, so the case was closed.
      She left the service.
      Over twenty years' experience & knowledge was rubbished & lost by a vindictive management team that were hell bent on controlling staff.

      And that, ladies & gentlemen & all other genders, is how the modern probation service targets, bullies & gaslights its own staff... and how it covers everything up.

      Delete
  2. Without sustained pressure they will let work pile up and blame industrial action when asked to explain by ministers, THEN senior managers will become vindictive towards their SPOs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly my experience. A bullish deputy telling me they’re ’just doing their job’ when telling us to allocate cases to people who haven’t completed core training, and allocations way above what is expected for PQiPs because PSOs are moving on to other roles and there’s no capacity within the current team.

      Policy is there for a reason, I will not be doing what my deputy says, but I am really concerned about the backlash I will receive.

      Delete
    2. Ask for any direction to be via e mail so you have evidence for any future tribunal !!

      Delete
  3. The only realistic way out of this isn’t individual burnout, tribunals, or splintering into weaker fragments, it’s rebuilding collective leverage fast, even in a climate of fear. When union leadership is weak and pdu heads and deputies use pressure and vindictiveness to suppress dissent, organising has to be low-risk, distributed, and hard to target: mass work-to-contract, no unpaid overtime, consistent recording of unmanageable workloads, and coordinated, lawful boundary-setting done by many at once so no one can be isolated. Protection comes from numbers and documentation, not heroics, shared behaviour, shared evidence, and visible operational strain that creates political and managerial risk. You don’t need a perfect union or a brave few; you need enough people doing the same legitimate thing at the same time that retaliation becomes risky, obvious, and costly. Power doesn’t respond to anger, it responds to density, coordination, and credible disruption. Each office is a voice, put together that’s a siren.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love this blog galvanising these posters to demonstrate the issues . Keep it up the pay abuse is our last straw thank you editor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is genuine fear around performance measures. Staff have seen colleagues questioned, pressured or placed under scrutiny after raising workload concerns. In that climate, hesitation is understandable.

    But we need to separate two things: individual underperformance and structural overload.

    Performance processes are designed to address capability issues. They are not designed to compensate for systemic over-allocation of work (though I know that's how they are used by some!)

    If assigned workload exceeds contracted hours, the issue is capacity, not competence.

    So how do you protect yourself?

    • Work your contracted hours.
    • Prioritise statutory and risk-critical tasks first.
    • Keep a clear, contemporaneous record of tasks that cannot be completed within available time.
    • Provide regular factual summaries to your manager outlining outstanding work.
    • When workload exceeds capacity, request written confirmation of prioritisation.

    Stay factual.
    Stay calm.
    Avoid emotion.
    Avoid confrontation.

    This is not refusal. It is professional transparency.

    When one person raises capacity concerns, it can be isolated. When many staff document the same arithmetic, it becomes organisational risk.

    Boundaries are not rebellion. They are evidence.

    Silence doesn’t protect you. Documentation does.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just to add - we have been told we may face a disciplinary if a prisoner attacks us at work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If someone is assaulted at work, that is not misconduct. Being attacked is not a disciplinary offence. It should not even be framed as one.

      Employers have a duty of care to provide a reasonably safe working environment. If someone is assaulted, the starting point should be risk assessment, staffing levels, training, lone working arrangements and management oversight not blame.

      If this message is genuinely being given, then the simple response is: can management clarify in writing under what exact circumstances an assault on a member of staff would trigger disciplinary proceedings?

      If they cannot answer that clearly, that tells you something.

      The fact that staff even believe this is possible says more about the current climate than any inspection report ever could.

      Delete
    2. How are they possibly to justify that!? That staff "didn't follow procedure" or something similarly bollocks?

      Delete
  7. What this thread is showing is cumulative damage.

    When experienced staff describe feeling erased, targeted, or unsafe, that doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from years of pressure, performance metrics, restructures and inconsistent management behaviour.

    Whether every story can be proven on a blog is almost secondary. The fact that people believe these things are possible tells you how low trust has fallen.

    And that’s the real issue.

    A public protection service cannot function in a culture where practitioners are operating defensively, fearing scrutiny for raising workload concerns, or believing they could be disciplined for being assaulted.

    That is not resilience. That is organisational fragility.

    If allocations breach training requirements, ask for the direction in writing.
    If workload exceeds capacity, document it.
    If safety feels compromised, request the risk assessment. Not emotionally, not rhetorically but in writing.

    Anecdotes create outrage. Evidence creates accountability.

    And if senior leaders are reading this, the temperature in this thread should concern you. Not because staff are angry, but because they feel unprotected.

    That is the warning sign.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very obvious blaming staff for being attacked is a tactic to cover their backs and avoid paying out compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The vast majority of managers would not last a week on the frontline now. Time to front up and get out there to help your staff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. https://www.business.gov.uk/campaign/employment-changes/employers/trade-union-requirements/

    ReplyDelete
  11. So with the changes coming in April a ballot requires simple majority as opposed to 40% threshold for industrial action

    ReplyDelete
  12. Missives from Somewhere that make you feel better:

    "Prime Minister appoints expert Cost of Living Champion

    The Prime Minister has directly appointed Lord Richard Walker as the Government’s Cost of Living Champion today.

    Lord Richard Walker will work across Government while enhancing partnerships with businesses, regulators, and a broad range of organisations to consider how the whole of Government can go further to deliver on its priority of easing the cost of living for families."
    __________________________________________________________
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/outcome-of-unduly-lenient-sentence-referrals

    The attourney general's office has been involved in more than one thousand cases where it was claimed sentencing was unduly lenient. The link shows a schedule indicating where cases were/were not 'in scope', what the original sentence was & what change, if any, was made following AGO intervention.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office

    Why have judges & magistrates when we have the AGO's office?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. from wiki

      "Richard Malcolm Walker, Baron Walker of Broxton OBE is a British businessman who is the executive chairman of the privately held British Iceland supermarket chain of predominately frozen food retailers. He is the son of the company's founder Malcolm Walker and qualified as a Chartered Surveyor, prior to joining Iceland. In 2023 he expressed an interest in standing for Parliament as a Conservative, but later left the party to join Labour.

      In January 2026 he was appointed as a Peer of the House of Lords by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, becoming Lord Walker of Broxton."

      "Price of everything, value of nothing" comes to mind.

      cobbler running the prisons, grocer setting the economy straight... next it'll be a toolmaker's son running the country!!

      Delete