« WORK TO RULE - AN EXAMPLE | Main | CODE OF CONDUCT: FOUL PLAY »
July 01, 2008
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER - MISMANAGING CHANGE: INTEGRATION OF UNPAID WORK
It was Sophocles who first said: ‘don't shoot the messenger', but history repeats itself endlessly. The integration of unpaid work could have been far better managed. Going back over a year Napo and Unison complained about the situation. Below is a document that can be downloaded which reproduces the relevant extracts from the minutes of the TU/HR meetings. Here is an extract of a submission we made to the JNCC last August (the subject matter was poor consultation with the unions):
'An example: In 2005 discussions were held, including union representatives, about the implementation of Offender Management. After several meetings the work was referred to smaller groups, on which there was no union representation. In 2007 Unpaid Work Officers were informed that they would become generic PSO Offender Managers, a job that is significantly different from the work that they have done in the past. The manner in which it has been implemented has caused immense concern: experienced members of staff have resigned as a result. Once Napo and Unison became aware of these changes we asked for a dedicated meeting to discuss issues arising from the change: changes to job descriptions for both UW Officers and PSO OMs, a new job evaluation for these posts, training, discussion of role boundary issues.. As a major organisational change this should have been discussed with unions before implementation. It appears that the process of implementation is not being managed on a whole area basis but is at different stages throughout the area, causing concern and confusion for staff. A meeting, at the instigation of the unions, is to take place in the near future to discuss these changes; prior consultation would have prevented what appears to be piecemeal and ineffective implementation of these changes.'
Eventually HPA get around to addressing the issues. A report was commissioned, but thus far we have only seen a letter 'summarising' the report. (We have asked for a copy of the full report and will pursue this under freedom of information if need be) Anyway, the summary has a few swipes at the Unions - being obstructive - which we reject as groundless. The Unions were in fact seeking to hold HPA accountable and make the intergration into offender management actually 'fit for purpose. There wasn't even an implementation plan. Here is Napo’s response to HPA’s misrepresentation of events. This is the text of a letter we sent today to HPA:
‘A copy of your letter to the PSOs in the South-West has been forwarded to me, and I must express my disappointment at statements you have included with regard to the Unions. I was the Napo Representative involved in any discussions that took place, and therefore best able to refute these claims.
There were no discussions with the unions in relation to the planned integration before the process took place. We were informed at HR meetings about management intentions, and it was at our request, after some delay, that a meeting took place in September 2007 to discuss issues raised by union members. Agreement was reached on a number of issues; I am not aware that this agreement has been implemented.
Members raised concerns after inadequate briefing sessions had been delivered in several areas; we are concerned that there is no evidence that the process of integration was properly planned, nor that an audit of staff skills was undertaken so that training could be provided. In fact you have stated in your response that a more detailed operational plan was needed; this relates not only to the South-West but also to the South-East. It is not therefore true that the result of integration has been unsatisfactory only in the South-West as compared with other divisions. I have raised the issue of Crams training for PSOs on several occasions; no adequate response has been given to these requests.
You have suggested that the Unions have been obstructive to the process of integration; I would welcome some evidence of this conclusion as my perception has been that the Unions attempted on many occasions to enter into a dialogue with HPA with regard to integration but were excluded from any discussion.
The integration of UW and OM was not effectively planned and has left many staff feeling deskilled and demoralised. It is for these reasons that the Unions have attempted to clarify the process and ensure that staff receive the support they need. The Unions have not, at any time, attempted to derail the process, but have represented their members concerns during a difficult period.’
Posted by Hampshire at July 1, 2008 06:39 PM