515 replies to this topic

[Whopper MacBig]

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.

Ha, that's the Police Service for you! When all else fails resort to type and apply a bit of stereotyping!!

[mdon]

Superb, I've prevoked a reply! Cmd, you think 19k is a decent wage? The local car park attendants in my deprived low income area get paid 21k starting wage, do you really feel the police should be lower paid than them?

To the comment from someone who works in the private sector who stated they'll have to work 52 years before they retire then my reply is stop spending all your money and pay into a pension I and most of my police colleagues do.

WMB, isn't that what most of the users of this site do? Stereotype, jump on people whenever they can because they are keyboard warriors?

[wanabe]

Postmen are on £20k a year!

[Sam Vimes]

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:36 PM.
unnecessary profanity removed

[little old me]

all i can say is I better ruddy well get into the regulars before this comes in otherwise I won't be going anywhere.

I didn't get 2 A-C A-levels but I earn more than £19 a year,
so it will be a case of do they want thicky me or do I really want a Job that pays me less.

[Whopper MacBig]

WMB, isn't that what most of the users of this site do? Stereotype, jump on people whenever they can because they are keyboard warriors?

And you do it so well.

[Police Constable 1]

Let's not talk about 21k a year being good enough to live on.

Let's talk about would YOU risk your life day in day out as long as you wear that uniform for 21k a year? Not to mention, tax, pension, and NI, you'll be taking home very little. This job is full of risks as everyone knows, and you might not have had an accident yet but everytime you put that uniform on you are a target, and some people depise it and will try their luck.

As explained, if Winsor wants brighter people in the police they won't come with that pay EVEN if in how 4 years it goes up to 30k that's still nothing compared to what new PC's earn now (met wage) and to what they could earn using their qualifcations.

I'm still quite new so to see winsor part 1 already start next month I was a bit upset, but saying that I'm young and at the moment it pays well, I wouldn't say it's the same as being a special theres too much politics involved in every day policing, and you don't always see that as a special. If part 2 gets implemented, I will strongly think about not paying for the fed, part 1 I can live with but part 2 will be too much to take in a short space of time.

You have talked about 21k as being the starting salary and saying it isnt comparable to what new PC's earn now and then in brackets put met wage, if you take into account the allowances and London weighting then a new starter in the Met would still be on more than what I am on almost 2years into the job, so that argument falls flat on its face!

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.

How can you post such a thing? saying that mop's and SC's only see a snapshot of police life, for one SC's will see a damn sight more of "police life" than a CNC officer stood on a gate!

Sam, I have deleted your quote as its to long to reply to, I will be facing the same out comes as every other officer in the job from the Winsor report and all I can say is, fine, yes I might lose some "perks" but so what, I'm still going to get my annual leave, Im still going to get paid every month and I will still be earning more than in any job I have been in. Why are you getting so het up over the starting pay when I assume from your post's your already serving?

Oh and on a last point, I'm not in favour of the cuts but as with everything they will happen no matter what, so no one is forcing anyone to be a PC therefore if you dont like it then quit, I'm sure someone else will be along to take your place and will be pleased to do it.

[mdon]

How can you post such a thing? saying that mop's and SC's only see a snapshot of police life, for one SC's will see a damn sight more of "police life" than a CNC officer stood on a gate!

Because perhaps I haven't always been a cnc officer? And I don't stand on gates?

Which role and force are you in?

[Police Constable 1]

Because perhaps I haven't always been a cnc officer? And I don't stand on gates?

Which role and force are you in?

I never said you did stand on gates, I was referring to the role, as for my role see my earlier posts above......

[Sam Vimes]

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:37 PM.

[Police Constable 1]

Why am I het up over starting salary? A number of reasons;

1) Such a low starting salary in relation to the work that is asked of us I think is an insult. Would you pay a surgeon £19k? A fireman? A lawyer? No, because you expect them to be knowledgable and professional and the ramifications of a mistake could be catastrophic. If you want someone to volunteer to take on the role and the burdens that go with it, they should be fairly compensated in monetary values.

Why is it an insult????

2) People joining the job later in life have higher financial commitments; mortgages, teenage children at University, in jobs that already pay a salary that equates to a lifetime's career. By making the starting salary £19k you make it impossible for them to join the job because they have accrued decades worth of commitments that youngsters may not have (childcare, educational fees, mortgages, divorce agreements). I think such a big drop in salary will bar the older entrants from applying; I have already heard of 3 people say they couldn't have lived on £19k with a mortgage and kids etc, so we'd have lost them. I think we forget that not every applicant is financially well off or a 20-something school leaver. Where did a diverse workforce go to?

£19k has been suggested as the starting salary with those that were SC's or PCSO's being on £21k now that is only £2680 less than what I started on, you seem to be obssessed with £19k when it has been said there will be 2 levels AND people will be on top rate much faster, also as I pointed out earlier, those in London would still get the allowances/weighting so they would still be on more than I'm earning now!

3) We want to attract the best and brightest (or so Winsor tells us), £19k will not do that. If you want the Police to be a good prospect for young people with the world at their feet, then you need to be offering them something good. £19k in return for high pension contributions, a risk of redundancy with no industrial rights, limitations on private life, risk to life etc isn't an enticing prospect.

1, Best and the brightest have been suggested as direct entry, failing that HPDS would still exist
2, £19k, you're at it again, why not mention the £21k as well and it would still attract people or are you saying only the "thickos" would go for such a wage? as thats what its comming accross as
3, I pay more into pension, Im at risk of redundancy as a PC and no we lost the right to strike almost 100 years ago so why mention that being on a cheap wage will reduce that when it was never there, the same for limitations on private lifes etc etc

As for the "no-one is asking you to do it so if you don't like it, quit" argument. Are we going to say that to everyone in every job who find themselves having their money and pensions stolen? Is that going to be your argument to nurses, doctors, firemen, teachers...? There might be someone waiting to fill our shoes, but there's nothing to say they'll be cut from the same cloth as the majority of current frontline bobbies. Falling into that trap is exactly what the Government want from us; "don't like it, leave", as opposed to "don't like it, stand up and fight for a cause worth fighting for".

So are you saying that those wanting to fill the shoes dont deserve it? whats to say they wont be better than some of the current standards

What are you going to do to fight for the cause? please enlighten me

[Machiavelli]

Why am I het up over starting salary? A number of reasons;

1) Such a low starting salary in relation to the work that is asked of us I think is an insult. Would you pay a surgeon £19k? A fireman? A lawyer? No, because you expect them to be knowledgable and professional and the ramifications of a mistake could be catastrophic. If you want someone to volunteer to take on the role and the burdens that go with it, they should be fairly compensated in monetary values.

Surgeons and Lawyers are completely irrelevant to your argument. Both of these occupations are paid highly because of the fact there are so few people with the necessary knowledge and skills to fill their position, and such skills cannot simply be taught in the majority of cases without a substantial education.

This is not to undermine police work, but to distinguish it. Policing is a job able to be done by a much larger proportion of people, without any particular educational requirements. Therefore the salary comparison is fallacious.

2) People joining the job later in life have higher financial commitments; mortgages, teenage children at University, in jobs that already pay a salary that equates to a lifetime's career. By making the starting salary £19k you make it impossible for them to join the job because they have accrued decades worth of commitments that youngsters may not have (childcare, educational fees, mortgages, divorce agreements). I think such a big drop in salary will bar the older entrants from applying; I have already heard of 3 people say they couldn't have lived on £19k with a mortgage and kids etc, so we'd have lost them. I think we forget that not every applicant is financially well off or a 20-something school leaver. Where did a diverse workforce go to?

There will always have been people who could not afford to take the pay-cut. Bringing in older people in itself is not a legitimate reason to raise the initial wages.

3) We want to attract the best and brightest (or so Winsor tells us), £19k will not do that. If you want the Police to be a good prospect for young people with the world at their feet, then you need to be offering them something good. £19k in return for high pension contributions, a risk of redundancy with no industrial rights, limitations on private life, risk to life etc isn't an enticing prospect.

I actually agree with this; if you want the best, you need to provide a financial incentive at least comparable to what they could achieve elsewhere upon starting work. That's not to say I agree with the extended concept of direct entry, but I do believe the police service could always benefit from bringing in intelligent and articulate people.

As for the "no-one is asking you to do it so if you don't like it, quit" argument. Are we going to say that to everyone in every job who find themselves having their money and pensions stolen? Is that going to be your argument to nurses, doctors, firemen, teachers...? There might be someone waiting to fill our shoes, but there's nothing to say they'll be cut from the same cloth as the majority of current frontline bobbies. Falling into that trap is exactly what the Government want from us; "don't like it, leave", as opposed to "don't like it, stand up and fight for a cause worth fighting for".

There's also nothing to say that they won't be cut from the same cloth as the majority of frontline bobbies; basing your argument on an assumption of inferior candidates is poor form.

I'll point out that, as someone eventually hoping to join, I'm not at all a fan of the 19k salary; but on the same note, flawed arguments help nobody.

[Sam Vimes]

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:37 PM.

[Police Constable 1]

Why am I not mentioning the £21k? Because the lowest wage for the non-SCs is £19k, that's why. And the top rate is irrelevant if you financially cannot keep your head above water long enough to get there. What is your obsession with the London weighting? Who cares about the London weighting? I don't live in London and their additional payment is for their higher cost of living so it's a moot point. London salaries in pretty much every job are higher than the national average because the standard of living is higher... it's more than fair that London PCs earn more.

For some reason, I assumed you were in London hence referring to that

Taking my example of someone in the 40s with a family and a mortgage and a full-time job, contemplating a change of career into the Police, it's highly likely they may not have time to commit to being a Special. 20 years ago it wasn't uncommon for people to leave school without 3 A-Levels. Therefore it's entirely feasible for that person to only find themselves eligible for the £19k starting salary if eligible at all.

I doubt very much the pay would remain at £19k (or £21k) for ever and would increase annually as it has done already for the last x amount of years, therefore if people can afford to take pay cuts now to do a job they wish to do then I'm sure they will continue to do that, as I said earlier £21k is only £2680 less than what I was on when I started and that went up after initial training, but they will be on top rate quicker which is an incentive and I would feel they could manage for 6yrs if it means they would be on £15k more by then

So you want all your best and brightest to enter at Inspector or Supt level? No place for them as a 10+ year PC? Where have I intimated the "thickos" would go for such a wage? They're your words not mine, and the idea of attracting the best and brightest is the idea of Winsor.

You said that if the best and the brightest is to be attracted then the wage isnt enough, hence saying they would be able to do direct entry, and you intimated "thickos" in my opinion by saying that it wouldnt attract the best and the brightest and I assume you mean it would therefore would attract the rest

As to your Point 3. I may be misreading it but I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, sorry.

In my force, I can be made redundant and I pay more into my pension than you do, so by you saying that it would be brought about by the Winsor report, in away its bringing all forces into line with each other.

The point about the industrial action, you said that it wouldnt be fair paying someone £19k/£21k when there is no ability for industrial action, I was pointing out that its not been allowed for almost 100 years so to argue that point is well pointless

Only last week we would have been advocating a diverse workforce... men and women, young and old. Now we're bringing in measures that I believe will curtail the diverse recruitment and appealing nature of the job. Funny how diversity goes out the window when money is involved.

Who will it prevent from joining? and where is your evidence that it will not be a diverse workforce if the proposals come in

I didn't say they don't deserve it. Deserving something has nothing to do with it. But do I think direct entry at Insp and Supt level will give us a decent calibre of supervisors? No, I don't. Do I think a £19k starting salary (£19k because not many will be a Special or a DE) will attract a decent calibre of person? No, I don't. Sure there will be exceptions, but on the whole that's my view on it. If the starting salary had been £19k when I joined I literally couldn't have afforded to live. No ifs or buts, but my pay drop would have been too much to meet my financial commitments. I'm a double-graduate but I don't want to be a non-cop in uniform - which is what these DE sort will be - I wanted to do my time as a PC, so DE/HPDS is irrelevant for me. But as a double graduate £19k would not have been possible for me

Out of interest, how long have you been in?

And as i've said before, the workforce should be wary of those wanting to fill their shoes. They should be wary of the people wanting to join, wanting to backfill during a work-to-rule period (if one ever happened), they should be wary of a further reliance on free labour via the Special Constabulary. This is an attack on the job we do, the terms we signed up to, and are going to have massive impacts on the standard of living for many serving Officers and their families. It's time to be selfish and look after yourself, protect your job and your interests.

Why should it be wary of those wanting to fill their shoes? do we not take on recruits to fill vacancies? who says there will be more reliance on the SC. Also how can you have "work to rule" in the job? its not possible. What massive impact will it have on the standard of living of officers and families?

[Hades]

Damn straight you'd be getting a -1. I'm not a "wannabe regular" and some of the specials on here, far better people than I, aren't either. The whole point of the Special Constabulary is to bring in people, and the experiences, from the outside world into the police. Personally I'm not joining up full time because what I enjoy doing full times doesn't have a direct utilisation in the police, and someone has to stay in the private sector and generate the wealth to fund the police! Sam I don't mean to be rude but the things you've listed as not having £19k make up for - would any amount make up for it? And we're not asking you to take a pay cut to £19k, just paying those who have no prior experience that during training and their initial probation. They'll be joining up aware of the money they're going to be paid. They'll also be getting pretty quick pay rises to take them comfortably ahead of the average pay for a member of the public, let alone one with only a few years experience. You also seem to be implying an entire career on the frontline, shifts, microwave meals, 30 minutes for the queen. Brilliant if that is what you do, and you'll not find anyone (well...) on this site who doesn't think you and other similar cops shouldn't be paid extra for doing that. 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? You ask the public to have the decency to understand what you do and have regard for that. I'd ask you to have the decency to try and understand what the public, as well as specials see when they look at the regular branch. They see a small, and dwindling, front line of cops, mostly young in service, most amazing, some marking time or not quite incompetent enough to get fired, backed up by an army of office dwelling or non 24/7 teams with cushier conditions.

The problem is that it comes across as you taking every opportunity to essential say "it's not that bad, man up and get over it" with regard to Winsor (whether or not that is your intention). This rubs people up the wrong way because it's our careers being messed about with - everything we expected when we joined is under threat and it's clearly unnerving for us, particularly when there are already significant pay cuts and freezes and we're all going to be very, very significantly worse off than we expected to be in a few years.

Essentially I'm saying that you have every right to put your views forward obviously, and you're most welcome to.... but don't be surprised if regulars get the rear with things you might say because it's our jobs being directly affected and our bank balances and our pensions and our promotion prospects and our........


Personally I don't really mind about the 19k starting salary - people can choose whether that is enough for them as new joiners - I'm bothered about the changes which affect those of us already in the job... The ability to (essentially) be made redundant is a particular concern (it's all very well saying that it wont be used for that sort of purpose, but clearly there's every potential - just look at how A19 has been used...)

Sam, I have deleted your quote as its to long to reply to, I will be facing the same out comes as every other officer in the job from the Winsor report and all I can say is, fine, yes I might lose some "perks" but so what, I'm still going to get my annual leave, Im still going to get paid every month and I will still be earning more than in any job I have been in.

That's the spirit.

[Sam Vimes]

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:37 PM.

[Hades]

Why is it an insult????

Because it's really not a very impressive salary if you want to attract professional, motivated, skilled and intelligent people.

£19k has been suggested as the starting salary with those that were SC's or PCSO's being on £21k now that is only £2680 less than what I started on, you seem to be obssessed with £19k when it has been said there will be 2 levels AND people will be on top rate much faster, also as I pointed out earlier, those in London would still get the allowances/weighting so they would still be on more than I'm earning now!

Only just over 2 and a half grand? I cant imagine referring to that much money as 'only'!
The reason there are cost of living allowances in the south east and London is because it's a more expensive to live there than where you are... they need to earn more than you so they can afford to do the same things that you can do...

3, I pay more into pension, Im at risk of redundancy as a PC

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...

So are you saying that those wanting to fill the shoes dont deserve it? whats to say they wont be better than some of the current standards

What are you going to do to fight for the cause? please enlighten me

Some officers joining in the future are likely to be better than some of the officers who are already in the job... I'd have thought that pretty obvious - Sam Vimes isn't saying they don't deserve it and you're totally misunderstanding if thats what you think,

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)....

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!

[Whopper MacBig]

The problem is that it comes across as you taking every opportunity to essential say "it's not that bad, man up and get over it" with regard to Winsor (whether or not that is your intention). This rubs people up the wrong way because it's our careers being messed about with - everything we expected when we joined is under threat and it's clearly unnerving for us, particularly when there are already significant pay cuts and freezes and we're all going to be very, very significantly worse off than we expected to be in a few years.

It doesn't come across like that to me. Rather, in my long experience Regular Cops are overly pre-occupied with what they get paid and they're just not used to hearing an objective view on it. The discussion in the mess room is all one-sided and I think people expect the same in here (and can't cope with it when it isn't).

As Specials, we've no interest in seeing people penalised unnecessarily and every interest in seeing a system that delivers good policing. What I have seen plenty of evidence of through my extended 'snapshot' of the current system is a low standard of recruit, poor quality management and plently of patently unfit police officers.

If your representatives had made a better fist of addressing some of that in recent years rather than just trying to be more and more outraged at the latest 'attack on conditions' then maybe you wouldn't be facing something as drastic as this.

My view is that it badly needs doing though.

[mdon]

Just to add another argument into the mix, people are saying its ok to start on 19k as you'll reach the top pay scale sooner, well not that much sooner as remember the increment freeze starts in April!


Also if you have a specialist skill ie TSG, RPU etc will you jump straight to the top pay point?

[Sam Vimes]

RPU I don't think attracts any additional payment... L1 and L2 PSU would get £600 per annum (you'll notice that figure has halfed since Winsor 1)

[mdon]

RPU I don't think attracts any additional payment... L1 and L2 PSU would get £600 per annum (you'll notice that figure has halfed since Winsor 1)

But I thought I read in windsor part two that the top pay point, the old ten year point would be for skill based officers? If you have a skill ie firearms does that mean you go straight to that pay point or just that after 7 years you will be able reach that point. All the RPU around here are also AFOs.

[Gallifrey]

I think when they say skills based for the top paypoint they mean that, it is subject to satisfactory appraisal each year, passing a written exam every three years and passing the annual fitness test.

Edited by Gallifrey, 19 March 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[SoapyW]

I've hestiated about throwing my two cents into the mix on this one, simply because even as a special I may have an insight into the police but Winsor doesn't really effect what I do one jot. So please know I don't want to be flippant with following comments about peoples careers, but have my opinion on the police the same as I do any other public sector job at a time of real austerity. Also I'm not a 'wannabe reg' as someone rather condescendingly dismissed all non pc comments earlier!

Firstly I think the uproar and complete indignation from all police officers regarding winsor is a mistake. Changes are coming, if you take a stand angrily against everything, you leave very little room for negotiation.

I've not read the report just peoples reactions to what seem to be the main points. So here's my thoughts on those. Redundancy, I cant think of any other line of work where people may not face this, so why should the police be different? If it did happen surely the first to go would be the under performing and back office staff that seem to annoy so many anyway. Its a nice to perk to know when you joined up, but I think it reasonable the government should be able to cut any service if it needs to balance the books. I'm not saying of course I support cuts to the police, but think it reasonable that its not a protected body.

Pay, do nurses get paid a fair amount for what they see? Do soldiers in Afghan at 18? The police is one of those jobs where with just a little service you have a number of examples of how tough a job it can be. But the simple fact is people are applying in there thousands for very few posts. Drop it to starting at 15k and you will still get graduates and good people who want the job. 19k is a perfectly liveable amount of money, especialy when you know its the first step to good rises. I read a comment here that graduates can earn double that, in what country is that?! My wife has a phd, is looking to go back to work and 30k is a reasonable expectation and thats with experience. Many graduate level jobs start in the high teens, and with so many graduates these days they simply cant demand the kind of wages they did many moons ago.

Fitness test, is this really an issue for anyone? Any L2 PO officers already have a fitness test to pass, I think it perfectly reasonable that all front line officers should be expected to maintain a decent fitness level. They do it in the armed forces and it works fine. Porkers who dont try go on a diciplinary, its staggered to reflect age and would no doubt be easy to pass.

Retiring later. Pensions are in a mess as we all live longer. Yes its a physical job but so is building and collecting rubbish, many lines of work have demanding jobs and are looking at the prospect of working longer. The service is seen as providing a very good pension plan and is obviously a big incentive to join and carry on in the job. It may take a knock, but I suspect it will still be very competitive when compared to other public sector and all private sector pensions.

The police have quite a good deal when compared to the armed and other emergency services. I'm not saying Winsor has it all right, but changes are needed and money needs to be saved. The police like every other line of work are at some point going to have to feel the pain of that.

[Gallifrey]

So pay freezes for two years and Winsor Part 1 don't count as pain already then ?

And what do you class as underperforming someone who doesn't make lots of arrests, well there are other ways of dealing with incidents reports for summons anyone? Someone who doesn't make lots of searches, again can't be used as a performance indicator, as it up to my discretion and whether I can justify it as to who I search. The worrying thing is that automatically tn per cent of officers will be classed as unperforming, how can an arbitary figure like that be used?

I do think people need to be reasonably fit, but I think that we should be given the facilities and time to train for this.

Edited by Gallifrey, 19 March 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Hades]

It doesn't come across like that to me.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to as everyones opinions and perceptions will be based on their own position... I can say for certain that it does to a number of regular officers.

Rather, in my long experience Regular Cops are overly pre-occupied with what they get paid and they're just not used to hearing an objective view on it. The discussion in the mess room is all one-sided and I think people expect the same in here (and can't cope with it when it isn't).

It's our job - it's where we earn our money to pay our bills and live our lives - obviously we're going to be pre-occupied with how much we earn!

I do think people need to be reasonably fit, but I think that we should be given the facilities and time to train for this.

The fitness facilities in my force are woefully inadequate! They removed the gym from my nick over a year ago and it's still not been put back in.