Protest Paranoia and Clayton’s Convoys!

As recently reported, issues and concerns raised by CANZ in respect of the proposed new policy have, for the most part, been disregarded by PPS. Accordingly, we now have to consider our next move in the never ending game of political football.

However, I was somewhat surprised and not a little amused to receive a copy of an email that appears to have been generated by General Manager Phil McCarthy. The email, which has been circulated amongst senior managers, recommends strategies for dealing with what can only be described as imaginary plans for protests, subversion and general skulduggery.

The email reads as follows:

Given the planned reaction of some staff when they got wind, wrongly, of a previous start date (organised protest, coming on in convoy etc), and notwithstanding the fact that we have repeated ad nauseum that the policy does NOT mean that we will be running this 24/7, I think we can expect some organised response on some sites for the 16th, in expectation we will be kicking it off then. I ask therefore that nothing happens on the 16th, and probably not the 17th and 18th – and that the first use of the system is coordinated so it doesn’t happen everywhere at once. For similar reasons, I would also suggest that it does not operate anywhere for two days in a row for the first week or so unless any prison is able/planning to run the system consistently.

• Now the first point I would make is one of clarification; wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that coordination of the system would result in implementation on all sites at the same time (just an observation!).
• The second point I would make is that, at this point in time, CANZ has no plans to recommend disruptive action. We are, however, seeking a legal opinion to determine whether PPS do, in fact, have the legal right to introduce such measures when some elements of the policy are clearly opposed by the majority of employees.
• The third point I would make is this; if PPS accepts CANZ’s assurance (see above), but still believe that the potential exists for the sort of opposition described by Phil, then surely that’s proof-positive that this policy is unsustainable. Staff protests that are organised outside of the parameters of the protection afforded via the Union are desperate measures indeed and should serve as an indication of the level of discomfort generated by the proposal.
• If we are to avoid such a catastrophic breakdown in employer/employee relations, then surely it’s time for a rethink.

  Whaddaya reckon, Phil?

Regards,
Brian Davies
National Organiser
On behalf of the National Officers