Good post dragartist. Recognise all of it.
I recall a few real crackers. The Cat A project (£400M+) that selected a young female graduate as Systems Integration Manager, then allowed her to let a 9 month consultancy contract to tell her what Systems Integration was. The UG7 who let two separate consultancy contracts to prepare 2nd and 3rd Risk Registers on the same programme, telling both that the main task was to omit the embarrassing MoD-owned risks from the main Register. Both constitute fraud, the latter one of the more significant pieces of evidence omitted by Haddon-Cave.
In both cases, the consultants kept a pretty low profile when they realised they didn't have the level of knowledge other PT members had including, respectively, the previous SI Manager and current Risk Manager. There are scores of similar examples.
You are particularly correct about Prospect (IPMS as was). They really are toothless. This in part is due to many full-time representatives actually having relatively low substantive grades. If, for example, a Grade D Union Rep at AbbeyWood upsets senior management, they can influence his position. If he loses his Union position, then his low grade means he has no job at AbbeyWood. Prospect/IPMS is well known for refusing to support its members who complain about this waste and fraud. As, of course, are the HCDC, Minsters and the current Head of the Civil Service.