guest, i'm glad we agree that this is not a nice way for the authority to behave.
if it isnt a role based position then why were the posts identified as 'station managers' a role quite clearly defined by a role map within the role structure? it appeared to be a method of introducing role without having made the move from rank! is that not r2r?
if it was a restructure and they were uniformed posts then they needed to be positioned within the rank structure. which i understand they have now done? if in fact they have done that does that put that particular issue to bed?
if the posts are deemed to be 'civilianised' (an awful term, is there one better we could use as it creates barriers and seems to attempt to demean people) then that is a matter for the authority. if this meant a reduction in the establishment then it becomes an issue for the rep bodies. if this impacts on those represented by the rep bodies then it again becomes an issue for those rep bodies.
if i remember correctly at the meeting, those present actually instructed the brigade reps to speak to 'principal management' re this issue. whether the dialogue was two way is a matter for those involved to determine, certainly not me. i also understand that it was because of dialogue, which also involved some at national level, that some issues were resolved?
the issue of no-one applying is an important issue. to suggest to those people they represent to apply for posts that are outside of the national agreements would surely be remiss of those officials. so i think they seem to be behaving exactly as i would expect them to behave in trying to protect their members. we all have personal views but they cease to exist when acting in a different capacity. if the brigade are restructuring without negotiation it seems to be a strange way of delivering change management, even bono would be a little confused as to why they chose that method? (ps edward de bono - he of the six hats - and not the singer!!)
the hidden message of 'if you dont apply we will civilianise' (i suggest message as opposed to threat may be a better use of language under these circumstances) is not particularly helpful at this moment. there is enough uncertainty and concern about the future already (which i think you recognise).
i alluded in an earlier post that by talking and working together a lot of these 'misunderstandings' can be resolved. a point you quite rightly try to emphasise. the njc has recognised this and introduced a series of meetings where the benefits of working together can be examined and hopefully introduced. i hope that your brigade and the fbu officials attend and gain some benefit for all!
in finishing i think i need to point out, as i have done many times, that when i respond on here i do so as dave beverley and not in my capacity as an fbu rep, the line i may take when acting in an 'unofficial capacity' may not be the same when i am representing others as best i can in the way they may ask me to represent them. i think this could be applied to your officials, and can only believe they are trying to do their best in representing their members best interests, (and interestingly therefore the best interests of the brigade) for both the current and the future
dave bev
