71 replies to this topic

[sarin]

I know it's been discussed on this forum elsewhere, but the requirement is not that you will do 16 hours a month - it is that you will complete 200 hours a year. I quote from the SOP: "MSC officers must perform at least 200 hours service each year (which includes essential training). However, for a MSC officer to become effective and efficient, they may need to perform duty at a higher rate." There is absolutley no mention of a monthly requirement, with good reason, examples being shift work or holidays preventing officers from doing duties every month whilst still being able to complete their annual minimum.

I think that my length of service is relevant - I have completed eleven years of service with an average annual hours total of 600-700 per year - so I have contributed well above my "agreed commitment to the cause" for many years. The reasons for a persons non fulfillment of hours needs to be addressed by a good supervisor rather than applying blanket decisions, especially if it's on a background of good performance (although I don't think this applies to me ).

There is no need for a leave of abscence as I will easily complete my annual hours this year - a quick check on MSC online shows that, to date, I have completed 120 hours of duty this year - I anticipate that I will be well above the 200 hours by the time July comes round.... My line manager is quite happy with my performance and is fully aware of my employment and that of others on the unit who won't be available due to Olympics priorities in their full time, paid, employment.

James

I'm looking at the MSCOnline SOP (which I think is out of date...)

Whilst you are correct the the SOP says 200 hours for the year, it doesn't deal with the situation of an officer doing their 200 hours in a single month and then doing nothing for the remaining 11 months of the year (Other than probably breaching the Working Time Regulations). A common sense approach is needed here (see ABSENCES FROM DUTY AND UNSATISFACTORY ATTENDANCE in SOP). IT would need to take into account mandatory training, skill level length of time away from duty...

Are you saying that if you have had a long career as a Special and have built up more duty hours in the past you should be credited for lack of hours in the future? I think your commitment should be judged by your current yearly hours as the SOP refers. That way everyone is treated equally and fairly regardless of how old, how long in service and how many medals you wear.

Edited by sarin, 08 March 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[LCFC]

As I was sitting listening to our Met borough Olympics briefing the other day it struck me that the requirement for duties was quite high. I believe the figure that was mentioned was every special was being asked to do 4 duties. Given that half my borough does sod-all, that means the remaining half have to do 8 duties to hit the target... That got me annoyed.

If Specials aren't going offer their services in the 'hour of need' (more like three months of need), should they be booted out swiftly afterwards ?? I think so.

I think for the metropolitan police, an important thing for London is safeguarding and getting involved with the 2012 Olympics. If you can do a duty, get involved it will be enjoyable but as for giving people the boot - maybe it would be the last draw for people failing to put the hours in but at the end of the day we are volunteers, most of which work very hard the rest of the year in order to police the UK.

Jobs and family come first, unless a real hour of need comes along such as last summer - don't want to be the force that cried wolf!

[TroyTempest]

Right, so nothing to do with the olympics then?

[JS]

I'm looking at the MSCOnline SOP (which I think is out of date...)

Whilst you are correct the the SOP says 200 hours for the year, it doesn't deal with the situation of an officer doing their 200 hours in a single month and then doing nothing for the remaining 11 months of the year (Other than probably breaching the Working Time Regulations). A common sense approach is needed here (see ABSENCES FROM DUTY AND UNSATISFACTORY ATTENDANCE in SOP). IT would need to take into account mandatory training, skill level length of time away from duty...

Are you saying that if you have had a long career as a Special and have built up more duty hours in the past you should be credited for lack of hours in the future? I think your commitment should be judged by your current yearly hours as the SOP refers. That way everyone is treated equally and fairly regardless of how old, how long in service and how many medals you wear.

The SOP states that is an officer hasn't attended duty for a period of four weeks then contact should be made with them. Enquiries should be made as to the precise reasons for non attendance. The critical sentence in the SOP is: "There is no definitive point at which concern about an officer's attendance should lead to formal procedures. Each case will be considered on its own merits", it should be noted that it doesn't say an officer must carry of 16 hours duty in each month before being contacted - in fact to comply with the SOP an officer could attend the station for admin reasons. Whilst carrying out 200 hrs in one month is extreme, there are many seasonal workers who do the bulk of tehir hours in the winter due to summer working - this isn't a problem so long as they log in regularly and keep on top of admin and return to duty once their life allows them to.

As a reasonably experienced MSC Supervisor I consider temporary pressure due to an officers day job to be perfectly acceptable circumstances for not attending duty. If it became a regular thing and the officer was struggling to perform the hours required throughout a much longer period, then a gentle intervention may be necessary. Certainly immediate dismissal as seems to be advokated here, would not be an option. MSC Officers are volunteers, they are not paid to attend duty, so consideration needs to be given to both the needs of the service and of that individual.

I'm not suggesting that because an officer has done lots of duty in the past or has lots of service they should not meet the minimum requirements, however what should be taken into consideration is an officer's past commitment. As an example if a highly performing officer has a child (not the officer on maternity leave), they will almost without fail see a reduction in hours - generally the couple of months around the birth will have zero duty hours. If the officer has been performing well upto that point then we need to leave them to the much more important thing in their life and encourage them back when they reasonably can. If they had been a poorly performing officer beforehand, then we need to give them due consideration too, but there is a greater chance of them not coming back at all due to their lower commitment in the first place and so they may not be given as much slack as a highly performing officer.

The key point in your last paragraph is " I think your commitment should be judged by your current yearly hours as the SOP refers". I agree - yearly hours are what matter, so long as the distribution isn't massivley distorted.

James

[Met-PC]

I always say "the MSC does not pay the bills", so anyone who suggests doing MSC duties which is in detriment to regular employment (e.g. if your day job is Olympics related) is misguided and very naive..

As long as you complete 200 hours a year, what does it matter?

With regards to the SOP, you need to apply a bit of 'common sense', you cannot treat all situations the same, just as well the MSC is run by peole who have common sense so what the OP is suggesting is never likely to happen except maybe in the case of someone who does very little hours all year round and them not voluneteering for any Olympics is used as extra evidence to get rid of them.

Edited by Met-PC, 09 March 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[Kellym82]

I'm looking at the MSCOnline SOP (which I think is out of date...)

Whilst you are correct the the SOP says 200 hours for the year, it doesn't deal with the situation of an officer doing their 200 hours in a single month and then doing nothing for the remaining 11 months of the year (Other than probably breaching the Working Time Regulations). A common sense approach is needed here (see ABSENCES FROM DUTY AND UNSATISFACTORY ATTENDANCE in SOP). IT would need to take into account mandatory training, skill level length of time away from duty...

Are you saying that if you have had a long career as a Special and have built up more duty hours in the past you should be credited for lack of hours in the future? I think your commitment should be judged by your current yearly hours as the SOP refers. That way everyone is treated equally and fairly regardless of how old, how long in service and how many medals you wear.

Let me put my situation to you - I am currently working full time (8.30-5.30 Mon-Fri) and also studying for a degree in my free time of which I have done 3 years and have one left to go after this summer.

My exams are in May - I will not be able to put in the 16.67 hours a month during the second half of April, and all of May, as my exams take presidence. If my exams were in August, the same would be true. However, I am 'crediting' my hours account balance over the next 6 weeks or so to make sure I don't fall behind my average hours. There is a sort of credit system that you can use, as there is no requirement for exactly 16.67 hours every single month. Where I am, if we go below this on a month, we simply fill in a form explaining why, and saying how we will/have already covered the hours missed in that month.

Are you saying I should put either my paid employment or my grades at risk because I can't do the hours during those particular months? I will still be completing more than my 200 hours a year even with my other commitments. I think you have got some strange standards going on. If your training runs out, whether or not you have done 16.67 hours a month, there are issues so this is something completely different.

We are volunteers, and we volunteer for shifts we can do. Saying you pick up slack from other officers who only volunteer for duties they like is rubbish - no-one is forcing you or any other volunteer to do duties they don't want to do. We as specials are here to add to the regulars, not to replace them.

Personally I am proud of the time I give up each month, even though it may not be anywhere near as much as some people at my station who are able (due to less other commitments) to give quadruple the hours I do.

I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that those who do not complete their 200 hours need to be sat down and talked to. I am pretty much certain that most people also agree that common sense is needed, and that 200 hours one month and nothing for the rest of the year doesn't make sense, and should be questioned.

However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the opening post, which basically said that if specials didn't volunteer over the Olympic period that they should be kicked out. This sentiment I heavily disagree with.

[sarin]

Let me put my situation to you - I am currently working full time (8.30-5.30 Mon-Fri) and also studying for a degree in my free time of which I have done 3 years and have one left to go after this summer.

My exams are in May - I will not be able to put in the 16.67 hours a month during the second half of April, and all of May, as my exams take presidence. If my exams were in August, the same would be true. However, I am 'crediting' my hours account balance over the next 6 weeks or so to make sure I don't fall behind my average hours. There is a sort of credit system that you can use, as there is no requirement for exactly 16.67 hours every single month. Where I am, if we go below this on a month, we simply fill in a form explaining why, and saying how we will/have already covered the hours missed in that month.

Are you saying I should put either my paid employment or my grades at risk because I can't do the hours during those particular months? I will still be completing more than my 200 hours a year even with my other commitments. I think you have got some strange standards going on. If your training runs out, whether or not you have done 16.67 hours a month, there are issues so this is something completely different.

We are volunteers, and we volunteer for shifts we can do. Saying you pick up slack from other officers who only volunteer for duties they like is rubbish - no-one is forcing you or any other volunteer to do duties they don't want to do. We as specials are here to add to the regulars, not to replace them.

Personally I am proud of the time I give up each month, even though it may not be anywhere near as much as some people at my station who are able (due to less other commitments) to give quadruple the hours I do.

I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that those who do not complete their 200 hours need to be sat down and talked to. I am pretty much certain that most people also agree that common sense is needed, and that 200 hours one month and nothing for the rest of the year doesn't make sense, and should be questioned.

However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the opening post, which basically said that if specials didn't volunteer over the Olympic period that they should be kicked out. This sentiment I heavily disagree with.

The example I gave was exaggerated on purpose (1 month active, 11 months inactive) so that it was obvious that the system was broken and common sense was needed to smooth the 200 hour requirement throughout the year. You have then applied the same result of my argument to your situation (6 weeks inactive) which is not comparable. If I was looking at your six weeks you would get bearly an eyebrow-raise, with three months perhaps a furrowed brow and six months would be a quizical stare. To those that take everything literally, please note, my previous sentence is something called humour.

Good luck with your exams though.

Regards

[Sir Nigel]

You know, these sort of comments really worried me when applying.

I have a baby and one on the way, i work 9-5:30 but really want to do what I can as a special.

I've just had my second who is now 5months old. Hard but I get in above the required amount of hours. I don't agree with the OP but everyone has said what I would have anyway.

[Gallifrey]

I think part of the problem is that the job is increasingly using the Special Constabulary to fill gaps rather than supplement regular officers and I think they are very wrong for doing this. It leads to situations where certain people do almost regular hours and then look down on other officers who cannot do anywhere near to this due to their other commitments. My thoughts are keep coming in when you can and you will always be appreciated by the majority of officers.

Edited by Gallifrey, 10 March 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[stamp monkey]

I have offered to do 4 shifts over the Olympic period (including 3 of the predicted busiest days) However, that offer is conditional on my current roster remaining as it is (I do shift work) and as my day job is subject to leave restrictions, over that period, my request for "special leave" (yes it really is called that with my employer) may be refused.

Additonally my day job is subject to extended shifts, and cancelled/re-rostered rest days in the same way as the police so, when sweeping statements are made about getting rid of people or disciplining them because they can't commit I get a bit miffed (not directed at any of the posters here)

I, like everone else here, will do what I can for the people of the UK, my colleagues and the force.

Stay safe people...

[Layla]

I have offered to do 4 shifts over the Olympic period (including 3 of the predicted busiest days) However, that offer is conditional on my current roster remaining as it is (I do shift work) and as my day job is subject to leave restrictions, over that period, my request for "special leave" (yes it really is called that with my employer) may be refused.

Additonally my day job is subject to extended shifts, and cancelled/re-rostered rest days in the same way as the police so, when sweeping statements are made about getting rid of people or disciplining them because they can't commit I get a bit miffed (not directed at any of the posters here)

I, like everone else here, will do what I can for the people of the UK, my colleagues and the force.

Stay safe people...

It must be a total 'mare to fit in with your shifts, I know it's a very precarious position for you.
Good luck with your shifts

[Harrovian]

I'm front line police staff, and I'm yet to get my rota for the Olympics, therefore I haven't signed up for any shifts.

Boot me out.

[whisper2011]

As I was sitting listening to our Met borough Olympics briefing the other day it struck me that the requirement for duties was quite high. I believe the figure that was mentioned was every special was being asked to do 4 duties. Given that half my borough does sod-all, that means the remaining half have to do 8 duties to hit the target... That got me annoyed.

If Specials aren't going offer their services in the 'hour of need' (more like three months of need), should they be booted out swiftly afterwards ?? I think so.

A Special isn't a full time Police officer, if they have work committments/family etc that comes before a Special duty. If they wanted to be 100% involved they would be a Police Constable not a VOLUNTEER SPECIAL CONSTABLE. Which your constabulary should be aware of when you first applied for the constabulary and filled in your application form saying you can committ to x amount of hours duty per week

Let's just be glad your not in charge of the constabulary or maybe there wouldn't be any specials left.

[sarin]

A Special isn't a full time Police officer, if they have work committments/family etc that comes before a Special duty. If they wanted to be 100% involved they would be a Police Constable not a VOLUNTEER SPECIAL CONSTABLE. Which your constabulary should be aware of when you first applied for the constabulary and filled in your application form saying you can committ to x amount of hours duty per week

Please take the time to read the thread. Your statement has more than been addressed.

Edited by sarin, 20 March 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[FraserM]

The original statement/question:
If Specials aren't going offer their services in the 'hour of need' (more like three months of need), should they be booted out swiftly afterwards ??

I think there are a wide range of "hours of need" where Special Constables fill the void and offer their assistance, this varies from a safer neighbourhoods team needing help with a local fete, a response team being below minimum numbers and to the other extreme which someone mentioned, the London Riots last year.

However, to cut a long arguement and long statement short... its a ridiculous statement that SC's who cannot commit to the Olympics should be removed from the role and asked to leave...

At the end of the day we are all volunteers and volunteered for a different reason, a chap I used to supervise in Essex only wanted to work with his neighbourhood policing team as he wanted to make a difference to his local community and really did a good job and continues to do so... Just because he doesnt want to work the Olympics or any other mutual aid - should he be kicked out?

[TroyTempest]

I'm not convinced sarin ever dismounted his horse....

[FraserM]

I'm not convinced sarin ever dismounted his horse....

If Specials don't volunteer for mounted duties, they should be asked to leave.

[mwe99]

Well my paid job is the Ambulance Service, so I'm obviously on the Olympic rota... so just because I can't commit because my job will be busy dealing with the Olympics I should get booted out... I don't think so?

[TroyTempest]

But you have an "excuse", which is as close to a dismount as the thread got

[sarin]

WhatAmIDoing, I find your comments rather unhelpful. How would you tackle chronic under performance, a large number of specials who are dormant, ineffective senior management? Kicking people out is the logical conclusion!

You sound like someone who sits on the side lines in their arm chair shaking a stick. Get a spine and kick people out who don't do their part. If you aren't doing your 200 hours a year (16 hours a month smoothed over the year....) go and join the local running club where you will do more good.

Edited by sarin, 23 March 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[Giraffe]

WhatAmIDoing, I find your comments rather unhelpful. How would you tackle chronic under performance, a large number of specials who are dormant, ineffective senior management? Kicking people out is the logical conclusion!

You sound like someone who sits on the side lines in their arm chair shaking a stick. Get a spine and kick people out who don't do their part. If you aren't doing your 200 hours a year (16 hours a month smoothed over the year....) go and join the local running club where you will do more good.

I'm sorry but you really are clutching at straws. You're original post had nothing to do with under performance - you are merely now using that as a distraction to what you originally posted.

[Giraffe]

In fact thinking about it Sarin, I would have more respect for you if you either stuck to your guns with your original argument (that you feel SCs should be booted out if they don't volunteer during the Olympics), or alternatively listened to the arguments and changed your mind. Instead what you've done is tried to sidetrack the discussion to a separate issue of Specials not performing their hours and so forth - something which if the truth be told I find rather pathetic.

I think this conversation has been derailed enough and therefore I'm closing the thread.