« LAST CALL FOR TOLPUDDLE AND NAPO AGM | Main | BRANCH CALENDAR 2009/10 »
July 03, 2009
THE CONSULTATION ON POTENTIAL REDUNDANCIES
We know it’s a ‘restructure’; there are ‘efficiency savings’ to be made; there is ‘natural wastage’ to be hoped for to offset being shown the door; there is the SBC chainsaw which results in job massacres. There are euphemisms galore and management speak aplenty. But this is all about cuts, cuts, cuts and redundancies. They build you up and then cut you down. Probation staff who have striven over the years to perform now get their reward and recognition!
The market model/ideology is still being promoted. Want some ‘income generation’, a dose of KPMG, subcontracting, commissioning…? Market thinking is now going to save the probation service. More likely it will continue to strip away its moral, ethical and professional standards.
Do we need a marketing mindset to boost performance? Recent comparative data on public and private prisons shows that public prisons are outperforming the private ones by 10 percent. The private sector drives down costs by reducing salaries and conditions of employment and by lowering professional standards. The performance enhancing market ideology is mythical - unless making a profit is your be all and end all and you are content to see only commodities in front of your eyes. There is more to life than calculation, contract and exchange.
But competition and markets, argue the realists, are the ‘real world’ and the public service ethos is of another age; to survive the public services must mimic the markets despite the recent knowledge of the failure of markets – the rescue of the banking sector by the ‘unworldly’ public sector. The probation service no more belongs in a politically bogus marketplace than does the blood transfusion service - seems such an obvious income generation scheme - having a marketplace in blood - but the problem is it does not attract the best blood!
We had a meeting with the management side on 2nd July to discuss the consultation paper on the proposed restructure and potential redundancies. We only received the paper on 29th June. We see very tight timescales. The paper is being treated as ‘restricted’ though we asked for it to be freed. Therefore only those members potentially facing redundancy will have been included in the circulation list. We see no reason for restriction. We see these potential redundancies as round one.
We see a commitment in the document to a minimum consultation period of 30 days in section 5 and in section 7 a closure to the consultation period by 20th July when the board will consider all responses. A range of meetings with affected staff started on 2nd July which means there are effectively 12 working days for consultation.
We will provide a Napo response by the 20th but we are unable to treat that date as the end of the process of consultation. There is no reference to the ‘management of change protocol’ in the Hampshire paper. This is attached below and was previously posted on this site on 2nd June. This is an important document. It, too, sets out timescales and includes what’s called a ‘period of reflection’ if an intention is reached to issue compulsory redundancy notices
At this stage we do not know whether any member of Napo will be subject to compulsory redundancy though it’s plain the period ahead will be marked by uncertainty - members will face changes to their role, selection procedures and possible redeployments at the very least.
In our response to the consultation we will have comments to make about the status of the redundancy policy and about selection criteria - for example, in light of a recent landmark judgment we believe there is a place for 'long service' weightings in the selection criteria.
We are aware that the paper is seeking views on who should be eligible to apply for new posts. Should those who are in acting up roles be included in the pool or should only those who hold a substantive post be eligible to apply? One of these options is potentially more expensive than the other given the protection arrangements that apply in the event of redeployment. An argument could also be made for extending the pool even wider as there are many experienced staff who may welcome a promotion opportunity. Where should the line be drawn?
We would welcome the views of affected members, on this or any other aspect of the proposed changes. All replies will be treated in confidence.
Telephone, Lotus Notes or email gaciow@hotmail.com
Posted by Hampshire at July 3, 2009 05:35 PM