515 replies to this topic

[CmdKeen]

It doesn't read as cornered and lashing out at all Meerkat. Herbert is also right that many of the Fed's objections are negotiable - the "equality impact" of different types of fitness tests are not a reason to object to a fitness test in general for instance.

[Hades]

It doesn't read as cornered and lashing out at all Meerkat. Herbert is also right that many of the Fed's objections are negotiable - the "equality impact" of different types of fitness tests are not a reason to object to a fitness test in general for instance.

The Federation has NEVER said they wont negotiate, indeed they're actively involved in negotiations at the moment, so not really sure where the relevance of that is... The Federation is legally established to protect the rights of the membership and that doesn't stop just because there is also negotiation ongoing. It's right and proper that they make people in positions of power aware of the proposed changes which are being negotiated, and the background to them particularly when so many MPs and Lords are quite oblivious to what's going on with the Winsor review and the recommendations coming from it.

[Sam Vimes]

Ah, negotiation.... The same negotiation where the Government implement exactly what they want regardless of anything else as we saw with Winsor 1?

Yes I remember that negotiation process...

[Lord Vader]

Have just spent a good half hour reading this thread, searching police and news sites, and even looking at the Home Office's own Winsor website and I still don't know and can't work out the answer to this (supposedly simple) question:

My pension contributions increased from April. Has the retirement age for police officers already been increased to 60?

The increased retirement age is one of Winsor's recommendations, and the Home Office has accepted all of them. I understand that the Fed is involved in negotiations at the moment (at least I think so) around Part 2. I also know that Theresa May gawd bless her mentioned the increased retirement age at the Fed conference, and said that anyone with 10 years or less, or aged 45 or over, wouldn't have their retirement age altered.

But I'm still none the wiser. If anyone can advise, I'd be grateful.

[Sam Vimes]

Have just spent a good half hour reading this thread, searching police and news sites, and even looking at the Home Office's own Winsor website and I still don't know and can't work out the answer to this (supposedly simple) question:

My pension contributions increased from April. Has the retirement age for police officers already been increased to 60?

The increased retirement age is one of Winsor's recommendations, and the Home Office has accepted all of them. I understand that the Fed is involved in negotiations at the moment (at least I think so) around Part 2. I also know that Theresa May gawd bless her mentioned the increased retirement age at the Fed conference, and said that anyone with 10 years or less, or aged 45 or over, wouldn't have their retirement age altered.

But I'm still none the wiser. If anyone can advise, I'd be grateful.

I believe that is the case and that it became effective as of 1 April 2012. 1st April was also the date that will apply for the '40+ with less than 10 to go' or aged 45+ being exempt from changes.

So if as of 1st April 2012 if you are aged 45+ or 40+ but with less-than-10-to-go you're safe, otherwise you're working to 60 on whatever the new scheme will be.

[Hyde]

I believe that is the case and that it became effective as of 1 April 2012. 1st April was also the date that will apply for the '40+ with less than 10 to go' or aged 45+ being exempt from changes.

So if as of 1st April 2012 if you are aged 45+ or 40+ but with less-than-10-to-go you're safe, otherwise you're working to 60 on whatever the new scheme will be.

How will that "retirement at 60" affect me? As it stands, I am awaiting a start date - which could potentially be when I am 21.

Edited by Hyde, 01 June 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[wanabe]

You will work till you are 60??

[Hyde]

You will work till you are 60??

Sarcastic answer to a seemingly obvious question, which I thank you for. But what I really wanted to know was, does the work until 60 negate the work for 30/35yrs?

Edited by Hyde, 01 June 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[Sam Vimes]

Sarcastic answer to a seemingly obvious question, which I thank you for. But what I really wanted to know was, does the work until 60 negate the work for 30/35yrs?

Yes it does. My 35 years would be up at age 57.... I will now have to do 38 years before I can retire.

Which means if you start at 21.... yep, you're gonna work for almst 40 years. 40 years of shift work, short-notice cancelled days off, poor diet, missed family occasions, wearing body armour, chasing people 40-50 years your junior..... what do you anticipate your life-expectancy for after retirement? Maybe you'll get to see 10 years of retirement perhaps if you're lucky? And that's if they don't increase the retirement age even further during your service... retire at 65 anyone? 70? And I'm sure the value of the pension will have reduced even further by then too.

[Dave SYP]

Absolutely ridiculous! Police Officers should NOT have to work any more years than they currently have to. Shift work, especially stressful shift work can and does shorten life expectancy. The baffoons who thought this was a good idea want to try working them for a month or two.

[Sam Vimes]

Absolutely ridiculous! Police Officers should NOT have to work any more years than they currently have to. Shift work, especially stressful shift work can and does shorten life expectancy. The baffoons who thought this was a good idea want to try working them for a month or two.

Quite... I've developed chronic IBS over the last couple of years attributed to shift work, lack of sleep, and poor diet... It almost made me take a desk-role in a partnership department; and I despise such roles! I think the number usually thrown around is a minimum of 5 years off your life expectency as a shift worker for any decent length of time. So not only will you get a rubbish pension, you won't even get your rubbish pension for as long as you might think!

Edit - Spelling

Edited by Sam Vimes, 03 June 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[Dave SYP]

Quite... I've developed chronic IBS over the last couple of years attributed to shift work, lack of sleep, and poor diet... It almost made me take a desk-role in a partnership department; and I despise such roles! I think the number usually thrown around is a minimum of 5 years off your life expectency as a shift worker for any decent length of time. So not only will you get a rubbish pension, you won't even get your rubbish pension for as long as you might think!

Edit - Spelling

I have worked shifts as and when I wanted to (being an ex-Special with 20 years in) but I have lost count of how many 'Regular mates' I have lost well before their time. Your body and mind has had enough when you have done 3 decades working silly hours, especially these days having to watch your back at every turn.

[Transducer09]

My second cousin ain't doing bad then - served as operational dog handler 24 years doing shifts and has been in retirement for last 15 years odd - I'm guessing the reason why he has lasted so long is due to the fact handlers don't work too many nights for their dog's welfare? I know the handlers at my local traffic garage love their current shift pattern.

Edited by Millman, 03 June 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[Random~name]

Yes it does. My 35 years would be up at age 57.... I will now have to do 38 years before I can retire.

Which means if you start at 21.... yep, you're gonna work for almst 40 years. 40 years of shift work, short-notice cancelled days off, poor diet, missed family occasions, wearing body armour, chasing people 40-50 years your junior..... what do you anticipate your life-expectancy for after retirement? Maybe you'll get to see 10 years of retirement perhaps if you're lucky? And that's if they don't increase the retirement age even further during your service... retire at 65 anyone? 70? And I'm sure the value of the pension will have reduced even further by then too.

My issue with this is that it doesn't take into account anyone who maybe on 30 schemes and would have retired at 50 then. Then made to pay an additional 10 years of pension contributions. Surely as a career average scheme, people like myself who are on the 35 scheme and joined at 18 should pay less because by the time I'm 60 I'll have paid more into mine than somebody joining at say 25 and doing 35 years and getting the full whack pension. I've paid 7 years more into it, should I not qualify for more or have my payments reduced to reflect the extra years ( career average scheme would mean i get no more money assuming I never get promoted. How has this been accounted for

[wanabe]

My issue with this is that it doesn't take into account anyone who maybe on 30 schemes and would have retired at 50 then. Then made to pay an additional 10 years of pension contributions. Surely as a career average scheme, people like myself who are on the 35 scheme and joined at 18 should pay less because by the time I'm 60 I'll have paid more into mine than somebody joining at say 25 and doing 35 years and getting the full whack pension. I've paid 7 years more into it, should I not qualify for more or have my payments reduced to reflect the extra years ( career average scheme would mean i get no more money assuming I never get promoted. How has this been accounted for

Isn't the maximum years for pension contributions 35 years though? So even though people will in the future be working 40+ years they will only pay into the pension for 35 years????

[Random~name]

Isn't the maximum years for pension contributions 35 years though? So even though people will in the future be working 40+ years they will only pay into the pension for 35 years????

If it stays that way then that's fine. I couldn't find anything in the Hutton or Windsor that enlightened me. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did change it.

[wanabe]

If it stays that way then that's fine. I couldn't find anything in the Hutton or Windsor that enlightened me. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did change it.

I was sort of asking that as a question myself to be honest. I don't know if this is true but it would make the most sense.

[Sam Vimes]

Should be worth mentioning the actual detail behind pensions is to be negotiated/Government say what they want and get it regardless.... All we think we know is that final salary will be axed and you won't retire before 60.

[CmdKeen]

Without wishing to be rude I would suggest that if police shift work does indeed kill earlier then the argument should not be had on the grounds of pensions and an extra few years, but that it kills people.

However the killing factor is questionable, the EU certainly doesn't believe it to be a killer, otherwise they would have banned it or otherwise regulated it further! Indeed the point is made that the higher income shift workers receive actually can help them live longer compared to "blue collar" workers.

I've been a member of the "Weekend Backshift Takeaway" club that specials rejoice in alongside specials. That, combined with the heavy drinking culture that certainly used to, and in some parts still exists, is much more likely to take years off your life than shift work itself. Indeed there are many good reasons an obese cop shouldn't be wolfing down a calzone and chips in the middle of a shift - mainly that your life could depend on the speed with which they can run to your aid in 20 minute time...

Indeed Winsor's requirement for an annual fitness test (in principle) could do more to add years onto police officer's lives.

Finally it is worth saying that final salary schemes benefit senior officers not regulars, whereas any fair calculation* of a career average salary should either benefit or not effect those who do not go for promotion. If you pay X% of your salary in a given year for a pension it seems odd the value of that contribution should suddenly, massively, rise if you get promoted. Given the UK policing system does have a promotion system for front line officers this does seem perverse, your contributions are paying for your Chief Constable's pension.

* if the calculation is unfair then crack on with protesting, that is totally justified

[Sam Vimes]

The EU don't believe night shift working to be a factor in life expectency and you prove that by quoting a 5 year old study which concentrates on men born between 1924 and 1949.... right ok.

As to binge drinking which you mention; that usually takes place on Friday and Satursay nights, which is usually when we're working. You'll find very few Police Officers take part in the drinking culture you reference.

[CmdKeen]

The EU don't believe night shift working to be a factor in life expectency and you prove that by quoting a 5 year old study which concentrates on men born between 1924 and 1949.... right ok.

As to binge drinking which you mention; that usually takes place on Friday and Satursay nights, which is usually when we're working. You'll find very few Police Officers take part in the drinking culture you reference.

It is rather better than the anecdotal evidence presented as nights killing people early. Given 1949 birth makes you 63 that seems, especially for a 5 year old study, to be a sensible time gap to work out the effects of night work on death rates. I would be genuinely curious to find medical studies of police officers or otherwise showing shift patterns being a major killer in and of themselves. Living an unhealthy life "because of" shift work doesn't count, as the large numbers of, usually female, officers I know who managed to not have chip based meals whilst working shifts.

Binge drinking may be dropping off now amongst officers, although I know several who manage to have more than their fair share on a night out, but during the past, when the "shift work kills" line arose there certainly was a massive drinking culture in the police. But then so did much of society, both blue and white collar.

As it stands it seems the most demonstrated lethal thing about shifts is driving tired, either on duty or home afterwards.

[ococircusboy]

The effect that shift work has on your sleeping pattern has been studied numerous times and shift work does put stress on the body. I will try and find a recent ish study (which I think was done with american LEO's).
The role that the police do will naturally shorten a life due to the shifts, the quick turnovers, job stress, lack of healthy food (3am in the morning what are you going to eat, if you even get a chance), and many other reasons.

[Sam Vimes]

An unhealthy lifestyle exists because of shift work, you cannot separate the two, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't work a shift pattern. Do you work shifts as a Police Officer CmdKeen?

Less opportunities to exercise, lack of sleep, less exposure to sunlight, missed meals or eating at the wrong time, fewer opportunities to socialise and wind down, inability to fix your start and finish times, continual cycle of going from adrenaline rush to adrenaline rush.... The simple fact is, life expectancy is shortened through shift work, it is that simple. Numerous studies exist across the globe which suggest the same thing, including one in Denmark where the Government have paid compensation to female who are believed to have contracted cancer through their shift work.

I can't remember the last time our weekly Force Orders recorded the death of a retired member beyond their 70s, which to me shows we - as Police - are not living longer.

[CmdKeen]

Can we really knock the 3am food thing on the head at least. There are plenty of healthy, or at least not unhealthy, food options available. It tends to require a degree of preparation more than going for the remnants of the takeaway menu. These days there are even plenty of supermarkets (and other shops) doing inexpensive ready meals that aren't all fat, alternatively you've sandwiches, any number of microwavable food you've prepared yourself previously (the most economic option) etc. Many nightshift cops I know stick to breakfast foods for the 3am meal break and ate before they came out.

And if your force doesn't let you have a microwave then Fed them up and invite the person responsible for a 3am dinner with you...

[ococircusboy]

Can we really knock the 3am food thing on the head at least. There are plenty of healthy, or at least not unhealthy, food options available. It tends to require a degree of preparation more than going for the remnants of the takeaway menu. These days there are even plenty of supermarkets (and other shops) doing inexpensive ready meals that aren't all fat, alternatively you've sandwiches, any number of microwavable food you've prepared yourself previously (the most economic option) etc. Many nightshift cops I know stick to breakfast foods for the 3am meal break and ate before they came out.

And if your force doesn't let you have a microwave then Fed them up and invite the person responsible for a 3am dinner with you...

and how do you expect people to go to the shop, get a ready meal, take it back to the station, heat it up, sit down and eat - when there may be 3 outstanding I graded calls? This is not uncommon at all atm, and unfortuntaley we don't have the luxury of going back to the nick to heat up some food we made earlier.
That is the life of a response pc at this moment - eating food on your way to the next call.