The National Chairman

ISSUE 53, 23rd June 2009

SUPPORTING AND CAMPAIGNING 70 YEARS ON AND CHALLENGING CHANGE

Dear Colleagues

SUPPORTING AND CAMPAIGNING 70 YEARS ON AND CHALLENGING CHANGE

The POA is celebrating its 70th Anniversary as a Trade Union and the battles we face today are similar to those of 1939.

However, there is one significant difference and that is, we no longer have our Trade Union Rights.

We face a legal system that is littered with anti trade union legislation and an Employer who is hell bent on delivering whatever is asked of it by Government and has no allegiance to its employees.

Pay

This year, following the overwhelming rejection of WfM by the membership through the ballot box, the POA was forced to return to the Pay Review Body (PRB) seeking a fair and just pay award for members in England and Wales. Will the PRB recommend a fair pay award and more over will the Government implement it in full, we wait to see. However, history outlines the manner in which this Union and its members have been treated in respect of pay. When the economy was booming we were used as a means to curtail pay rises. Now the economy is in decline, the economy is being used to force down our pay. Clearly this identifies that no matter what POA members will be treated as second class citizens in respect of pay.

Is the Pay Review Body independent? In our opinion, No.

The Pay Review Body was established to compensate the Union following the introduction of Section 127 in 1994 and the loss of our rights as workers.

We have for many years complained of the way its members are appointed and paid by Government. This compensatory mechanism is not adequate and the Union will continue to campaign and challenge until change is achieved in this area.

Workforce Changes

The Union and its members are facing change year on year, some caused by budget cuts, others by a management that does not care and certainly does not stand up for what is right. It is a pity that the NOMS Board do not take a leaf out of other management boards and support its employees.

All too often, we enter into discussions and because the Union proposes change, it is dismissed. Why? We believe it is because both management and Government have their own Agenda and that is to make prisons as cheap as possible and ripe for picking by the private sector.

All too often, we see local management bully and intimidate staff to achieve change. Why? The answer is because they can and their managers support them no matter what the outcome. The attitude of the NOMS Board and senior management of the Prison Service is becoming more and more dismissive of the Union, its employees and in respect of industrial relations.

All too often, we see our management being subservient to Government, instead of standing up to protect public prisons and public workers. Why? The answer is because they do not believe in public services and will court the private sector for personal gain. Why is it that our managers will not stand up and be counted? Some Chief Constables have and often challenge budget cuts imposed by Government. Other managers have resigned on similar points of principle. David Scott Chief Probation Officer in London resigned following an incident in early June this year. He believed that the attack on the Probation Service budget by the NOMS Board was a significant factor in the tragic murders by Daniel Sonnex and as a result resigned his position. You have to ask why the Director General of NOMS and the Board who are responsible for the budgets of Probation did not do the honourable thing and resign. Jack Straw Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice publicly apologised for the failings in the system, but is that really enough. Clearly, the management of NOMS and those in charge of the Prison Service are not principled people.

So we must ask ourselves is change necessary, or is it simply change for change sake. Yes, change is necessary. We need to see safe prisons, decent prisons and prisons that are fit for purpose. Prison staff must be empowered to deliver the work asked of them. The Union must have the right to negotiate on change and not simply be consulted, as is the case today.

Trade Union Rights/Industrial Relations

From 1939 to 1994 the POA had its Trade Unions Rights and the right to Free Collective Bargaining. So was pay better, did we resist change during this period of our history, probably not, but, without doubt we were treated fairly and respected by our Employer during that period in our history. Why, because they realised that if necessary the Union would react to imposition.

Today, the Employer and Government simply impose because they believe they can, but be under not illusion this Union will react if necessary and challenge change.

The Unions campaign to Europe to regain our Trade Union Rights continues but it will be a long process. However, the pain the Union is feeling following the withdrawal from the JIRPA in May 2008 is plain to see, but this will not and should not deter us from our fight for Justice. We call on the Government to recognise our rights and those of other workers and remove the anti trade union legislation which shackles trade unions.

The Next Steps

The ballot result in respect of Market Testing and Clustering now affirms the policy of the Union. Therefore, the POA will fulfil that policy and engage.

We will continue to challenge Market Testing and the criteria and selection process which has been introduced by NOMS and Government.
We will continue to challenge the proposals for change as outlined by Robin Wilkinson in his letter of 27th April 2009. Changes that we see as WfM through the back door and if necessary we will enact Conference Policy to challenge this change.
We will continue to challenge the process in which Chinese walls are being used by the NOMS board to allow the Public Sector Bid Unit to operate and for Robin Wilkinson to act as the Champion of the Public Sector Prison Service for the purposes of Market Testing. This process is simply unacceptable and we are currently looking at legal options to challenge these so called safe guards. An example of how corrupt this process could be was given at the National Whitley held in Cleland House on 18th June 2009, when the Executive advised the Board that we would not endorse any bid that was unsafe. Their retort was simple “if the local POA object to any element of the bid, the public sector bid would not go forward”. If this is not holding a gun to this Unions head, I do not know what is. When questioned about a public sector bid for a private prison, no decision has been made by the Board which can only lead to the assumption that any public sector bid for a private prison or contract would be a Government decision.
We will continue to challenge the imposition of budget cuts year on year. However, this is something that local officials need to challenge and POA members need to campaign with their local MPs and media to raise the awareness of how dangerous these cuts make prisons.
We will continue to challenge the clustering, benchmarking, specification and costing programme, not because we are adverse to change or to engaging in the process but it is clear that the Service will only look and use systems which drive down costs. It is beyond belief that the Service only accepts best practice in monetary terms, cheap is not cheerful.
We will continue to campaign, promote and protect the members of the Union. We must stop the infighting; a vote of no confidence in the NEC by any branch only gives the employer a way in to attack the Union and branches.

If any branch feel the Executive is not in tune with key issues, rather than holding the vote of no confidence at a branch meeting, invite your NEC rep or any member of the Executive to the meeting to outline the position and then if the branch are still dissatisfied, give the Executive an opportunity to put things right. This does not mean that the Executive will placate a branch, what it does mean is we will take on board members’ views, evaluate Conference policy and continue to promote and protect members and this Union.

Colin Moses
National Chairman

ARCHIVE:

20th MAY 2009: The National Chairman

18th MAY 2009: The National Chairman

6th MAY 2009: The National Chairman

30th APRIL 2009: The National Chairman

24th APRIL 2009: The National Chairman

21st APRIL 2009: The National Chairman

15th APRIL 2009: The National Chairman

MARCH 2009: The National Chairman

DECEMBER 2008: The National Chairman

AUGUST 2008: The National Chairman