Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Winsor Report - Part 2

winsor review regulars police pay winsor winsor review regulars police pay

  • Please log in to reply
533 replies to this topic

#226 Gallifrey

Gallifrey

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 4,533 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:31 AM

It doesn't surprise me the only decent Met Gyms I've seen seem to be the ones used by senior officers, normally during job time too.

Edited by Gallifrey, 19 March 2012 - 11:31 AM.


#227 BigCopSmallTown

BigCopSmallTown

    Forum Legend

  • Power Users
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:47 AM

I feel the pain that many full time cops have regarding the pay cuts under Winsor so please dont jump down my throat but consider the below as another perspective.

Most people in most jobs do one simple thing when the terms and conditions are not right - they seek alternative employment. I have been a civil servant for many years and having grown tired of continual cuts to my terms and conditions I left and found other employment in a different industry. The pay as a cop is getting worse - we all see that however there is nothing you can do about it in reality - the government will pay you what it wants to pay you. If you dont think what you get paid is worth it for what you do then find another job and someone who is prepared to accept £19k starting salary can take the post.

The direct entry in my mind is good - it has worked very well in the military and civil service for a long time. With the correctly identified people they can make good managers and leaders - even in the protected world of policing where apparently the only thing that matters is "how long have you got in".

#228 Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,485 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:56 AM

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:42 PM.


#229 CmdKeen

CmdKeen

    Conservative MP for Google

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,960 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:00 PM

I'll admit I've come across fairly pro-reform on this thread, but that is because I disagree so much with the status quo - the proposals aren't perfect but neither is what happens at the moment.

Firstly I think the downplaying of the £19k v £21k is fairly major, I doubt many 40 year olds thinking about a career change isn't going to take the opportunity to do a year in the specials first, otherwise the jump into the unknown would be huge! The same could also apply to those at university, volunteer for a year - it saves you money (not drinking as much!) and gets you a £2k pay bump when you join.
That said I personally think that the starting pay should be varied depending upon qualifications, experience etc. £19k is good money for some people who start, rubbish for others, that isn't an argument to pay enough to attract more people to those who would join anyway.

On redundancy - plenty of cops get forced out in various ways through the disciplinary system, at least with redundancy you get paid. The public sector in general is still a very, very safe bet for long term employability. It should also serve again as an encouragement to get qualifications, who is more likely to get made redundant, the cop who does nothing to improve themselves from the day their probation ends, who isn't allowed to drive because of the number of crashes, and is generally pretty rubbish to the point where their Sgt has to make sure they're partnered with sensible people all the time - or the L2 trained, advanced driver?
You mentioned surgeons and lawyers, how many of them get made redundant despite technically being subject to it? Better to clear out the dead wood than A19 the most experienced officers who want to stay on and are physically fit enough to still do the job.

Based on my private sector experiences my tonic would be different from Winsors, and involve proper performance and skill related pay. The key to this is proper performance evaluation, not the simplistic "you made X arrests" system that distorts sanctions detections and also ignores vast amounts of what officers actually do. This should be something that everyone can get behind, not just regulars but the public as well - the press love running stories about arrests of children for stupid things. Utilising the crossover between your, vested, interests and what outside groups will want is the key to forcing change.

#230 Killicksparker

Killicksparker

    Forum Legend

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 2,820 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:05 PM

A quick note to the regulars who are arguing with the SCs ant MOPs who seem to be in favour of the cuts, you'll never win the argument as these are wannabe regulars who will accept any terms to become that so its better not to try and reason with them, they only see a snapshot of police life. At this point I would say something like I'll await the -1's but since we can't do that anymore I would be able to see how many people I have upset with these remarks.


Um, wrong - I don't want to be a regular

#231 Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,485 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:22 PM

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:43 PM.


#232 Morse

Morse

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,017 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:28 PM

But why should the officer inhabiting an office, working 9 to 5, who has an hour for lunch in a canteen? Why do they deserve to have the public treat them better than the millions of other people doing similar jobs?


What about the public protection officers who interview abused children, victims of horrific sexual offences day in day out. Interview sex offenders and as a result go home stressed daily from dealing with the most sickening despised people in society?

They work office hours and perhaps have an hour lunch break in theory.

Perhaps they should go back to locking up fighting youths at 2am to earn their money.

You apply black and white logic with no real understanding of reality. Many vitally important jobs in the police are day shift. Who should do these jobs? Perhaps with the mass exodus back to the real works of giving out asbo tickets on the front line people can be forced into day jobs and be told they are getting an obligatory pay cut.

What about the shift officers who turn day shift for a couple of months to work on a house breaking. They lock up someone for a 40 charge roll up. Well done boys we have just docked your pay.

The typical govt spin is that people are driving desks and getting paid lots of money to do so.

Where do you draw the line with whats a cushy day job and whats not. There is more to policing that walking the town centre on a friday night dealing with drunks.

If some people with supposed police experience are totally clueless then what chance do we have with the public or MPs.
This report has nothing to do in the slightest with fairer policing our a good deal for the tax payer. Its only to save the govt money, nothing more and nothing less.

#233 CmdKeen

CmdKeen

    Conservative MP for Google

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,960 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:40 PM

Without it turning into a love in (on this thread of all things as well!) I agree with the vast majority of Sam's last post as well!

Morse - the proposals do cover specialist skills or jobs with particular degrees of nastiness as getting extra pay. But I'd also question why your SOLOs (or whatever they're called) solely need to work Mon-Fri 9 to 5. Even if it is daytime only, which I'd question, offences can occur at weekends and so cover is needed.

For every specialist unit you mention there is the officer that Sam Vimes mentions. Or the DV team that just looks at the forms the response team fills in and attends meetings rather than actually deal with anyone. If everyone worked a job that meant they qualified for the extra pay and benefits I wouldn't have a problem with that! Indeed that would be the optimal situation.

#234 Morse

Morse

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,017 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:53 PM

Without it turning into a love in (on this thread of all things as well!) I agree with the vast majority of Sam's last post as well!

Morse - the proposals do cover specialist skills or jobs with particular degrees of nastiness as getting extra pay. But I'd also question why your SOLOs (or whatever they're called) solely need to work Mon-Fri 9 to 5. Even if it is daytime only, which I'd question, offences can occur at weekends and so cover is needed.

For every specialist unit you mention there is the officer that Sam Vimes mentions. Or the DV team that just looks at the forms the response team fills in and attends meetings rather than actually deal with anyone. If everyone worked a job that meant they qualified for the extra pay and benefits I wouldn't have a problem with that! Indeed that would be the optimal situation.


PPU work day hours as they work the majority of the time with the social work department who work day shift. PPU and those who are trained as solo are not necessarily the same thing. Solos dont aol work day shift.

Do you agree a shift officer turned day shift for a long term operation should have pay cut? They don't have to be specialist to do this or have involvement in anything particular nasty.

You don't come across as having any great knowledge of policing other than one solution fits all based on stereotypes given by the government.

#235 CmdKeen

CmdKeen

    Conservative MP for Google

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,960 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:18 PM

Why on earth would a single day shift suddenly mean a pay cut? You seem to be trying to create the most horrifically nasty implementation of the proposals possible for the terms of this comparison... What is far more likely is the pay being based on the role you're assigned to, so beat cops get paid the same regardless of whether they are working a night or day shift that particular day.

I do know what the PPU is as well, I missed your reference to it being specifically them. I've also been on duty when a PPU officer would have been excellent to have to hand, except it was 1am and none were working. As for social workers, their whole 9 to 5 attitude is exactly what the police shouldn't be trying to aim for.
I've also been out with PPU officers when they've been made to go back onto the beat for a shift and heard what they really think of parts of their job - parts that don't need a warranted officer to do and should frankly be left to the realms of clinically qualified staff.

Anyway, once again, the proposals allow for extra money for specifically qualified staff. The PPU make up a tiny percentage of the total number of cops on a force, and are specially trained and not everyone is capable of doing the job, pretty much the definition of a job that should be rewarded well.

I'd ask why a cop working on the new fangled HR software system project deserves to get paid extra despite facing no danger, anti-social hours or risk of seeing anything nasty.

#236 Morse

Morse

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,017 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:44 PM

Why on earth would a single day shift suddenly mean a pay cut? You seem to be trying to create the most horrifically nasty implementation of the proposals possible for the terms of this comparison... What is far more likely is the pay being based on the role you're assigned to, so beat cops get paid the same regardless of whether they are working a night or day shift that particular day.

I do know what the PPU is as well, I missed your reference to it being specifically them. I've also been on duty when a PPU officer would have been excellent to have to hand, except it was 1am and none were working. As for social workers, their whole 9 to 5 attitude is exactly what the police shouldn't be trying to aim for.
I've also been out with PPU officers when they've been made to go back onto the beat for a shift and heard what they really think of parts of their job - parts that don't need a warranted officer to do and should frankly be left to the realms of clinically qualified staff.

Anyway, once again, the proposals allow for extra money for specifically qualified staff. The PPU make up a tiny percentage of the total number of cops on a force, and are specially trained and not everyone is capable of doing the job, pretty much the definition of a job that should be rewarded well.

I'd ask why a cop working on the new fangled HR software system project deserves to get paid extra despite facing no danger, anti-social hours or risk of seeing anything nasty.


PPU don't carry out roles which clinically qualified staff should be doing. Clinically qualified staff do that.
Police interview and investigate so I'm not sure where you got that from. Should they start interviewing sexually abused children at 3am to justify extra pay or leave it as is to tie in with social work who are primarily day shift.

You have a point about hr software and I don't dispute that.

#237 MattD

MattD

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:51 PM

I think some of the above posts from SCs and MOPs show a lack of understanding of the breadth of day to day policing.

I am certainly not anti reform but Windsor is trying to use a machete on what requires a scalpel. My view on it is that it has been a waste. It was a chance for a reform, for professionalisation. Instead it is really more about costs and imposing more control over the service.

I have no issues over annual fitness tests, I would support a massive increase in the level of the tests as well...providing it meant the change was driven through access to equipment. In any job that requires a level of fitness you find that job provides opportunities to develop your fitness. In the army they have gyms, in the fire service they do 2hrs a day of phys...in my force we have one gym in the entire force.

Likewise pay and conditions, we should def tackle the lame and lazy, but the idea that we should reduce pay and then sack those on restricted duties is silly. Many people end up on restricted through no fault of their own, like the armed forces we should do our best to keep hold of those skills and experience.

To be honest the biggest problem is the attitude of one poster above. That in essence that policing isn't a profession and that loads of people could do it. I disagree. Just because lots of people WANT to do it doesn't mean they can. Professional policing requires abilities that at times are intangible and so difficult to measure.

#238 Hades

Hades

    PoliceSpecials.com Staff

  • Moderators
  • 12,747 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:51 PM

I'd ask why a cop working on the new fangled HR software system project deserves to get paid extra despite facing no danger, anti-social hours or risk of seeing anything nasty.

Although what if they've been posted there (due to their specific skill set) without choice. What if an officer is posted from any frontline role to a role not attracting higher payment? I've been subject to compulsory posting before and my morale disappeared overnight and I considered transferring or going back to working in IT... I definitely would have if it'd also meant me losing part of my salary too..

#239 MattD

MattD

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 04:07 PM

Additionally to the direct entry idea, very poor in my idea. Surely the focus should instead be on why we require attested officers in so many senior positions? We can get the "talent" that such entry supposedly will bring by simply having the posts they come in as being civilan ones, do we really require a Chief Supt in charge of a "division" which deals with the JSU and admin.Just reduce those posts which are "done" by warranted senior officers not try to direct recruit into what doesnt need to be a warranted role.

IMO but PS and Insp are the last two operational police ranks and should only be done those who have served at the lower rank. Its not a 6 months in that job and you know it type role im afraid. As a 5yr in PC, who is Part 1 and 2 qualified, it takes a considerable time to develop not only those skills, but those instincts on how to work a job. Not to mention the obvious public order issue. You simply cant teach how to command a serial or PSU on a course solely. Youve had to hold the line with stuff being thrown at you to appreciate how to use the tactics.

#240 Police Constable 1

Police Constable 1

    Forum Confused!

  • Power Users
  • 10,777 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 10:38 PM

Right... But Sam Vimes and the majority of other police officers in the UK joined Home Office forces and did so under the expectation that they were NOT subject to risk of redundancy. The fact that you chose to join a force where you're not subject to those terms (and where your pension isn't as good) is a matter for you... it doesn't make it any less of an issue for those of us who are affected by that recommendation...


Im sure my pension works out better than HO hence a fair few HO having wanted in the past to transfer in, however we do pay more into it than you do at the moment.


I'd suggest that at least objecting to being shafted is a good start to fighting for the cause, rather than arguing with concerned colleagues for the changes (that significantly disadvantage us from our current positions)....


I might be naive in thinking "whats the point," you cant change what they want to implement so whats the point in getting all wound up about it when they will still be implemented.

Christ. Maybe you do need to get a new job after all. Might I suggest a job with Mr Winsor - you seem to like his policies more than I like a decent fry up! :(


Just because I'm not overly concerned with the changes, doesn't mean that I fully agree with them, I'm entitled to my view point but just because it disagrees with yours and others is no need to say that I like his policies.

#241 Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,485 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 10:51 PM

I might be naive in thinking "whats the point," you cant change what they want to implement so whats the point in getting all wound up about it when they will still be implemented.


With that sort of attitude we'd probably all be speaking German and goose-stepping around our patches.

I really do hope your attitude isn't prevalent in the BTP (if that's who you work for?), and across the Police in general. I'd rather go down fighting than allow myself to be used as a doormat regardless of the odds, and that doesn't just apply to Winsor and work, but life in general. Pretty poor form from you I have to say.

#242 Police Constable 1

Police Constable 1

    Forum Confused!

  • Power Users
  • 10,777 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:05 PM

With that sort of attitude we'd probably all be speaking German and goose-stepping around our patches.

I really do hope your attitude isn't prevalent in the BTP (if that's who you work for?), and across the Police in general. I'd rather go down fighting than allow myself to be used as a doormat regardless of the odds, and that doesn't just apply to Winsor and work, but life in general. Pretty poor form from you I have to say.


It's not "attitude" its an opinion, and I hope you arnt inferring that I'm unproffesional in my role

So it we take your attitude towards it, where will it get us?

#243 Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,485 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:11 PM

I haven't brought professionalism into it at all, where on earth do you get that from my post? The reason I said I hoped your attitude isn't commonplace is that I would like to think the majority of bobbies would stand up for themselves rather than roll over.

And where will my approach get us? Who knows, but even if we get a concession on just one point of the reform which gets turned in our favour then it will have been one thing more than we'd have got if we just bend over.

#244 MerseyLLB

MerseyLLB

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:16 PM

To be honest the biggest problem is the attitude of one poster above. That in essence that policing isn't a profession and that loads of people could do it. I disagree. Just because lots of people WANT to do it doesn't mean they can. Professional policing requires abilities that at times are intangible and so difficult to measure.


Yes. But the current recruitment system hardly selects the elite of the elite for policing does it?!? However, the system isn't dropping around our ears. There are some numtpies who join up, but after training and a bit of tutoring they find themselves and become competent at policing. There are only ever really a handful of true numpties who are useless uniform carriers over their career. Most either manage to get to a minimum level or leave/are filtered out.

#245 Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 4,485 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:31 PM

http://www.surreypf....nsor Part 2.pdf

An interesting read from Surrey's PolFed.

#246 MattD

MattD

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 12:10 AM

Yes. But the current recruitment system hardly selects the elite of the elite for policing does it?!? However, the system isn't dropping around our ears. There are some numtpies who join up, but after training and a bit of tutoring they find themselves and become competent at policing. There are only ever really a handful of true numpties who are useless uniform carriers over their career. Most either manage to get to a minimum level or leave/are filtered out.


Direct entry at higher ranks is meant to help this how :(

My point was in how policing is seen, ive been a member of this forum for over a decade and have seen the attitude in many posts. People who feel that because they WANT to be in the police means they should be able to. People seem to see it as a career that is easy to get into and isnt professional. My point is this is contrary to the reality. Policing is professional it just is not as easy to measure what we do, many aspects of an exceptional bobby are impossible to quantify. I currently work for what i consider to be the best PS ive ever served with including my almost decade as an special. Ive tried hard to see how i could vocalise why he is an exceptional leader but its difficult to articulate or evidence on paper. The skills of managing the team and the job are in many simply learnt in post. I also struggle at times to see quite what the issue is with certainly our lower level leaders. I think our model is sill the envy of most of the world, our crime rates in the main representative and in short little really wrong with the police at present. No our leaders may not have "vision" but when you work in an industry that is entirely constrained by legislation in everything it does and whom has an end goal/product (the reduction of crime) that is so open to outside factor and interpretation, what do you expect...you want change for changes sake?

My concern with windsor is its a missed opportunity, i want someone to tackle the useless bobbies on top whack doing as little as possible and earning way more than me for it. I dont see windsor as the solution to that. I see windsor as a way to control an organisation that the politicians have a significant distaste for and that has no way of fighting back. Im not seing similar "reforms" in other organisations that could have them and save similar sums of money.

#247 fence

fence

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 931 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 01:23 AM

http://www.surreypf....%20Part%202.pdf

An interesting read from Surrey's PolFed.


Very good read, and actually very useful, I didn't think about it in that way. The main point which I agree with is;


Recommendation 39 deals with those officers who are on restricted duties. If
an officer is on restricted duties for one year their pay will be reduced by
£2,922 per annum. If they then continue on restricted duties for another year
proceedings should be commenced to either dismiss or ill-health retire them.
No account is taken of whether their restriction was as a result of an injury on
duty or indeed equality legislation relating to those officers with disabilities.
This recommendation takes no account of the dangerous job that we do and
the potential for any of us to be seriously injured doing that dangerous job.
Why would anyone want to put themselves in danger now that you know that
within two years it could mean losing your livelihood?



If this get implemented I think we will see a large increase in officers thinking 4 times about a situation and safety and thinking well if I risk at and get hurt I've lost my job, where as now a days I think many would agree if faced with a dangerous situation our natural gut feeling will tell us to risk it because of the type of people we are (caring for others/community etc) but with that above recommendation I can many people backing off situations.

#248 mdon

mdon

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,037 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:52 AM

Im sure my pension works out better than HO hence a fair few HO having wanted in the past to transfer in, however we do pay more into it than you do at the moment.


What are your pension details ie 60ths 70yhs or 80ths? I forget which force you are in, either BTP or CNC buy I'm pretty sure your pension is not better than home office.

#249 shinyboots

shinyboots

    Experienced

  • Members
  • 739 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 10:07 AM

Unless its changed in the last two years the army dont do fitness tests after 40 years so that's not quite right, I agree with what your saying though.


The army do fitness tests compulsorily up to the age of 50, I'm in the regular army and we do ours twice a year. My last one was a week ago and trust me, they're hot on fitness! If I fail a PFT then you have to carry out remedial training with a PTI and have an interview with the CO! Repeated failure, without good medical reason, does result in discharge.

#250 GoneForgotten

GoneForgotten

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Members
  • 13,718 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 10:29 AM

The army do fitness tests compulsorily up to the age of 50, I'm in the regular army and we do ours twice a year. My last one was a week ago and trust me, they're hot on fitness! If I fail a PFT then you have to carry out remedial training with a PTI and have an interview with the CO! Repeated failure, without good medical reason, does result in discharge.

Which is great if you get the time to do phys as part and parcel of your job. Barrack routine largely doesn't have you working on shifts and taken away on abstractions with no notice. Exercises are planned well in advance.

I don't think you can compare phys in the Army to phys in the Police, not to mention difference by arm and corps. Your Regiment might take phys seriously, plenty don't.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: winsor review, regulars, police pay, winsor, winsor review, regulars, police pay

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users