TPO Jobs, or not

Author Message   Spike Member Username: Spike Post Number: 1032 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 07:31 am:    Is there not an argument in the case of colleagues who have switched from "PSO" posts to become trainees that they have been in permanent employment whatever contract they have been forced to sign? Under employment law anyone who works on fixed term contracts for more than 4 years is deemed "permanent". Surely someone who has worked a combination of permanent and fixed term for 4 years should be afforded the same protection. I know its not a complete answer, but it could start to force the employers to rethink? Shouldn't this be going to employment tribunals and we be hearing the results? this might encourage active participation. Seems to me that whenever I hear of someone putting their head above the parapet, it gets shot off, with no support (visible) from Napo. Until I see in the national news that Napo have requested strike action in the case of a wrongly dismissed colleague like rail unions seem able to do, my head is staying firmly below. keep on keeping on Boy   The Boy Member Username: The_boy Post Number: 98 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 09:50 am:    “But, you're doing the right thing by leading by your example. That's what counts.” Thank you. I especially appreciate it after the run-in I had with a colleague yesterday about union stuff.   Revolter Member Username: Revolt Post Number: 176 Registered: 10-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 08:57 am:    Right again, The Boy. But, you're doing the right thing by leading by your example. That's what counts.   The Boy Member Username: The_boy Post Number: 96 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 05:01 pm:    "We can all value-judge about the levels of involvement of our workmates..." Yes, I am very good at judging how involved some (most) members of our branch are. What annoys me intensely is when I am told, by someone who does nothing for the union except pay their subs, that Napo does nothing - and then they expect to be represented! "...but the thing is to keep on keeping on." I agree, but being told by some members that the union is rubbish and then being expected to represent them can be a bit deflating. But it would take an extraordinarily rude and ungrateful member to make me give up on the union.   Gonzo Member Username: Gonzo Post Number: 342 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 03:53 pm:    "What of the TPO's?” It seems to me Revolter that the plan from Chivalry Road is to keep lobbying MP's. These MP’s will then raise some questions in the House of Commons and Straw or one of his minions will then duly ignore the tabled questions or spin their way out of it. Nothing will happen and if it does get reported in the media it will be a paragraph in the Society section of the Guardian (if we are lucky!). This government has already demonstrated that it doesn’t care what the voters think anyway (take the millions who protested against the illegal invasion of Iraq for example). Furthermore, ministers and NOMS have demonstrated over the past few years that they cannot be trusted, so what is the point in continue to negotiate with them? Meanwhile, as we prevaricate, the clock continues to tick onwards. The French always seem to get results when they take direct action so lets be a little more Gallic. Yes, I know that they did not have Thatcher who castrated the Unions and I know that the British are generally deferential by nature, and I am not for one moment suggesting that we take extreme measures like the French do. What I am saying, however, is that some members may need to re-visit what the Trade Union movement is for, as I feel that some of us may have lost our way in recent years. In my opinion, we should be doing EVERYTHING within our powers to ensure that our Comrades are provided with the jobs they have worked so hard to achieve. We should also be doing EVERYTHING within our powers to ensure that these redundancies (after all that is what they are) do not take place. It is called SOLIDARITY. However, it seems that we are prepared to do nothing; “tough luck TPO’s”. I am told that there is “no appetite” at Chivalry Road or amongst the 42 branches to ballot for strike action. If this is the case then I apologise to our TPO comrades. I am sorry that we could not help you when you needed us. This is because members are more interested in their own jobs to care about yours. Thatcher did her job well; solidarity is well and truly dead.   Revolter Member Username: Revolt Post Number: 175 Registered: 10-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 01:28 pm:    I take your points The Boy and share your frustrations and feelings. For me the age-old slogan of the trade union movement is invaluable - agitate, educate, organise. We can all value-judge about the levels of involvement of our workmates, but the thing is to keep on keeping on. Meanwhile, what of the TPO's?   The Boy Member Username: The_boy Post Number: 95 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 01:23 pm:    “It is vitally important to involve local members and encourage them to become active within their union.” Absolutely right. “Unfortunately, however, it would seem that some reps seem to be threatened by this.” Really? “Shouting from the outside and not becoming involved is not activism and ultimately futile.” That’s what I think (see thread ‘ask not what Napo can do for you, but what you can do for Napo’.) “You may wish to try and understand the fact that those of us in field teams overwhelmed by caseloads simply CANNOT make the time to attend branch meetings, particularly when they are held on the busiest day of the week IN office hours.” I appreciate that people are over-worked. One thing we did in our branch was contact members asking them for suggestions for convenient times to have branch meetings. Out of 200+ members five people responded. Are people too over-worked to respond to an email about making the union more accessible to members? I asked a colleague why they don’t get more involved in the union – they said they’re too busy. So am I… Where there’s a will there’s a way, I say… Yes, people are busy – we are all busy – but there are still some who find the time to get involved in their local branch and, in my opinion, there are many content to let the few fight their battles for them.   Revolter Member Username: Revolt Post Number: 174 Registered: 10-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 10:06 am:    Get real, Crisis. What woolly liberal rubbish. You may wish to try and understand the fact that those of us in field teams overwhelmed by caseloads simply CANNOT make the time to attend branch meetings, particularly when they are held on the busiest day of the week IN office hours. To dismiss workplace meetings as people "shouting" from the outside in a "vociferous" manner tends to suggest to me that you oppose rank-and-file grass-roots organisation. Rank and file members CAN and DO mandate their reps to represent them at AGM's and branch meetings - it's called representative democracy, as opposed to some of the more executive-led branches that may exist. I got the impression that none of the reps at the AGM I attended had even been nominated by their own divisions, let alone had bothered to consult their own members. I think you or the person you know who felt "bullied" because the vast majority disagreed with you need to get used to the idea that you may have been wrong. You may also need to accept that meetings can get quite passionate - that's a fact of life in the trade union movement - so to see that as "bullying", is a load of sour grapes.   Crisis What Crisis? Member Username: Crisis_what_crisis Post Number: 221 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 11:24 pm:    I agree with the points about impressive numbers at a local office. However, there is no 'mandate' to send a rep to the branch AGM. Indeed, the branch AGM is the arena for putting oneself forward to represent yourself and colleagues. At the very least, you get to put your case and have your voice heard. Shouting from the outside and not becoming involved is not activism and ultimately futile. If a few of the vociferous ones attended branch occasionally, we might get quoracy more often. As it was the AGM, where officers report to members, the audit is voted upon and reps are elected, was quorate by 1.   Gonzo Member Username: Gonzo Post Number: 340 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 10:42 pm:    24 members at an office meeting? That's pretty impressive! In my view the local reps at this office should be applauded. Too many reps have become complacent in recent years in my opinion and have become divorced from their local members. It is vitally important to involve local members and encourage them to become active within their union. Unfortunately, however, it would seem that some reps seem to be threatened by this.   Revolter Member Username: Revolt Post Number: 173 Registered: 10-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 10:19 am:    Not so bad if those 24 members mandate their reps to take the message to their branch AGM though. 24 members attending a workplace meeting - that's loads more than most branches get to their quarterly meetings. I'd like to have heard the "dissenting" voice's arguments. I'd like to be at a workplace where they get that many attending meetings.   Crisis What Crisis? Member Username: Crisis_what_crisis Post Number: 220 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 08:22 pm:    You might argue that 20% of members putting their heads above the parapet at a time of uncertainty and anxiety over possible redundancies is not too bad. More frustrating is when a meeting is held in a local office and 24 people demand strike action and even try to bully the one dissenting voice into agreeing with them and then only one or two of them even bother to turn up for the branch AGM.   Myob Member Username: Psiman Post Number: 442 Registered: 07-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 01:46 pm:    What can local branches do? Well, in our area an email of condemnation to the board chair and higher management was sent calling for the employment of all TPOs. All members were encouraged to reply to show their support, copying in the chair of the board and the chief officer. Less than 10% of the branch did so, with about the same number replying only to the branch exec in agreement. It seems that the attitude of many of our colleagues is more one of "don't say anything, don't do anything, because I might be next". Sorry to be pessimistic again, but if people aren't even willing to put their name to a simple email, I really do depair.   Fyrewalker Member Username: Fyrewalker Post Number: 64 Registered: 04-2008 Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 02:11 pm:    Positive, whilst I understand the realism of your argument here, I dont think it's a good enough excuse for not taking on TPO's. Many of my own cohort, myself included, had already worked under permanent contracts for several years with the probation service before applying to train as a PO. We weren't given a choice about accepting a temporary contract and I think it's wrong to ask an employee to place their job at more risk than their colleagues in order to become better trained and qualified, and progress in their career with the same organisation. If they don't have a role for me as a PO, fair enough, but I think my employer should at least reinstate me to my previous role until such time that they CAN give me a PO role. I've also heard a rumour that probation were well aware they wouldn't be able to take us on after qualifying but that they had to honour their contracts with the universities...if this is the case I feel used and betrayed - the least probation could have done was to be honest with us at the very beginning and those of us who already had a permanent contract could then have made a more informed choice. I've also been doing my bit re contacting my MP etc. Yesterday I was helping to collect signatures from members of the public for a petition against probation cuts...not just because I personally am facing the chop but because I also care about the effect on my colleagues that will be left behind trying to deal with impossible workloads. My local NAPO is trying to do their bit, but I'm sad to say the only staff helping out yesterday was we TPO's...   positive Member Username: Positive Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2009 Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 04:39 pm:    This situation has happened for a number of years now, when i qualified a couple of years ago it was the same then and we were left wondering up to the line whether we would have jobs or not. I remember our last university placement as a cohort and the depressed mood from colleagues across different areas in the region. Although I do recognise that it is a lot more widespread this year. Its not a coincidence that we do have a massive recession going on and that the service is general is shakey at all levels. I have to say though... when i was a TPO it was clear to me that i had employment for two years... i was having my education and training paid for (something i could not have afforded myself) and i was paid a wage which allowed me to get by. Teachers, nurses, social workers, doctors, speech therapists. etc etc all who qualify from their training (have made alot more personal and financial sacrifices than many of us did) all face a situation of looking for jobs when all is said and done. I resent whole heartedly the situation in which vacancies may not be plugged where POs are needed. However, I will not be striking or taking extreme action... not cos I fear being next.... but cos the situation this year is how its been for years now and its the same in many professions. You were employed as a trainee - you have been trained and when theres money in the pot believe me they will snatch ur hand off to give you a job. forcing areas to make up the shortfall when theyre having to make cuts anyway (like all public sector employers will be doing) is not the solution. putting pressure on the centre to allocate resources properly is... and that is what napo is clearly doing already.   The Boy Member Username: The_boy Post Number: 85 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 02:42 pm:    I think local branches can encourage members to contact MPs who attended the anti-cut regional briefings at the House of Commons and thank them for asking Parliamentary questions as well as supplying them with detailed information about the proposed cuts and their potential impact.   Leon t Member Username: Leont Post Number: 139 Registered: 09-2007 Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 02:18 pm:    While I recognise that this isn't a new topic, I thought it worthwhile to ask what other members think that NAPO nationally should, or could be doing to secure full TPO employment. What can local branches do? Has anybody got any examples of actions taken locally and if so what sort of responses did you get?? I don't think that its sufficient just to express displeasure, dismay or anger at the situation. They've picked on the TPO's as an easy target for an immediate 'monetary saving', absolute disgrace - needs action. Following on from that though, who next? Its back to the 'first they came for the Jews, and I said nothing' So whilst its a whole union/service issue its also a bit of self interest and protection that say's 'DONT SAY NOTHING, DONT DO NOTHING, BECAUSE I MIGHT BE NEXT'

Administration Log Out   Previous Page Next Page