redundancy threat - civilian working for police
gazpacho_uk
Posts: 241 Forumite
I have been employed as a civilian at Greater Manchester Police for 8 years and now face redundancy due to the current financial constraints imposed.
My concern is that 3000 civilian staff are to be made redundant and although the force says that police officer jobs will go to, these loses are just "natural wastage" as police officers cannot be made redundant.
I have asked the question below several times at work and have not received an answer so I was hoping that someone here could help.
The question:
Are Police officers subject to incapability procedures where by if an officer cannot perform the primary role they were employed to do, they can be dispensedwith, regardless of whether a medical condition or injury on duty.
I understand that The Police Performance Regulations state that if a Police Officer cannot perform their role, then that officer would be dismissed as unfit as a last resort.
I work with officers who are on “restricted” duties because of weight issues; high blood pressure, stress and even child care issues. There are officers who have "sleep" problems and therefore cannot work shifts and they are all placed in roles that are "restricted" and often roles that are civilian based. They believe that it is the responsibility of GMP to find them a role that meets with their restrictions and requirements and this is a concern to civilian staff that are facing redundancy.
I also asked if these officers would be replacing civilian staff earmarked for redundancy (at a greater cost to the organization) so they can maintain the “restricted” status or will GMP be assessing the restricted officers and deal with them accordingly as set out in The Police Performance Regulations if they cannot perform the role they were employed to do.
As expected ..... no reply !
Any advise, sympathy or criticism welcome
My concern is that 3000 civilian staff are to be made redundant and although the force says that police officer jobs will go to, these loses are just "natural wastage" as police officers cannot be made redundant.
I have asked the question below several times at work and have not received an answer so I was hoping that someone here could help.
The question:
Are Police officers subject to incapability procedures where by if an officer cannot perform the primary role they were employed to do, they can be dispensedwith, regardless of whether a medical condition or injury on duty.
I understand that The Police Performance Regulations state that if a Police Officer cannot perform their role, then that officer would be dismissed as unfit as a last resort.
I work with officers who are on “restricted” duties because of weight issues; high blood pressure, stress and even child care issues. There are officers who have "sleep" problems and therefore cannot work shifts and they are all placed in roles that are "restricted" and often roles that are civilian based. They believe that it is the responsibility of GMP to find them a role that meets with their restrictions and requirements and this is a concern to civilian staff that are facing redundancy.
I also asked if these officers would be replacing civilian staff earmarked for redundancy (at a greater cost to the organization) so they can maintain the “restricted” status or will GMP be assessing the restricted officers and deal with them accordingly as set out in The Police Performance Regulations if they cannot perform the role they were employed to do.
As expected ..... no reply !
Any advise, sympathy or criticism welcome
0
Comments
-
I must say that you sound a little bitter and are directing that angst towards your uniformed colleagues which is not really going to help anyone.
Unless there is a change in legislation warranted officers will not be made redundant - that is not an individual officer's fault, it is 'the system'. Some forces are not extending service to reduce numbers but civilian cuts will take a hammering to a much greater extent.
Try asking your Q here (but I'd suggest you be a little more delicate in your phrasing if you want to get any responses):
http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/
Good luck.:hello:0 -
Yes, there are police officers whose services should be dispensed with.
On the other hand, like many other bodies funded from the puiblic purse, the police have have also been subject to empire building. Many 'civilian' jobs simply don't exist and never did.
Axing surplus staff like that is not a problem. Indeed, it is the right thing to do. The problem is that the axe will probably fall on the wrong people."Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracyseeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.0 -
WhiteHorse wrote: »Yes, there are police officers whose services should be dispensed with.
On the other hand, like many other bodies funded from the puiblic purse, the police have have also been subject to empire building. Many 'civilian' jobs simply don't exist and never did.
Axing surplus staff like that is not a problem. Indeed, it is the right thing to do. The problem is that the axe will probably fall on the wrong people.
How have your comments in any way addressed the issues raised in the OP?:hello:0 -
I'm not so sure I fully understand your question and may be that's the reason why some have not replied. Are you asking if those on restricted roles are under the same criteria/policy as those who are about to be made redundant and if so is it fair that they are seen to be protected as they cant be made redundant if they are on restricted roles?0
-
Basically the OP is getting at
Job A - Civillian Filled
However the police force have a number of officers who are on reduced operations who fill Job A. Will it be legal that when Civillans are made redundant that these jobs be filled by those on reduced operations at a higher cost.
The answer will likely be yes as the job is redundant. It isnt illegal to make someone redundant and fill that role into someone elses job description. In this case a police officer who will retain their full position but complete the tasks of this job in addition. Yes it may be due to restrictions they arent doing the rest of their job but that is an entirely seperate issue.
The restricted duties is part of a far larger debate that is had almost annually in the media. The government do not like ill health retirement in the police as it is very expensive due to the pensions involved and so on therefore prefer to keep the people on restricted duties. I actually think its probably the better use of the public purse.
We also should bear in mind that the police are like the army and are not traditional employees of a local police force or authority for good reason.
Overall the OP comes over as bitter and will not have a leg to stand on legally. Im guessing at someone who was rejected by the force and joined civilly and spends their life sharing their bitterness about how the police would be better off with them than these officers; many of whom are nothing more than victims of serious health issues or injuries sustained in the line of duty. Is it really unfair that say a PC with 5 years service who suffers say a damaged knee or arm in the line of duty is not given every opportunity and support they can to remain a police officer and hopefully return to duty.0 -
MrRedundant wrote: »Overall the OP comes over as bitter and will not have a leg to stand on legally. Im guessing at someone who was rejected by the force and joined civilly and spends their life sharing their bitterness about how the police would be better off with them than these officers.
I'd toddle off and sort out your own deep personal issues before coming on here suggesting people are spending their life being bitter.0 -
Tiddlywinks wrote: »How have your comments in any way addressed the issues raised in the OP?"Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracyseeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.0
-
WhiteHorse wrote: »Has the OP touched a nerve, perchance?
Not at all.... I'm just curious as to why you never miss an opportunity to share your bitterness about the public sector yet do not supply actual examples to support your ravings.
Then again, why let the facts get in the way of a good old moan?:hello:0 -
MrRedundant wrote: »
Overall the OP comes over as bitter and will not have a leg to stand on legally. Im guessing at someone who was rejected by the force and joined civilly and spends their life sharing their bitterness about how the police would be better off with them than these officers; many of whom are nothing more than victims of serious health issues or injuries sustained in the line of duty. Is it really unfair that say a PC with 5 years service who suffers say a damaged knee or arm in the line of duty is not given every opportunity and support they can to remain a police officer and hopefully return to duty.
I'm a civilian employee, and until recently we had police officers (and not those on restricted duties) carrying out exactly the same role as me (dispatcher) on 3 year tenures, at an additional salary cost of £10k+ per annum.
Yes there is a lot of duplication of civilian posts which does need to be trimmed back, but when this is done, the functions of these posts will still require to be carried out, which is likely to be done by police officers "backfilling" these roles.
Then "someone" might eventually see that these jobs can and should be carried out at lower cost by a civvie.....which is why a lot of these jobs became civilianised in the first place.....and so it will go on.
I'm not a "frustrated reject wannabe" police officer, I have immense respect for my officer colleagues (well most of them anyway!) but have never had any desire to do their job0 -
Tiddlywinks wrote: »Not at all ...I'm just curious as to why you never miss an opportunity to share your bitterness about the public sector ...... yet do not supply actual examples to support your ravings.
One has however to be careful - there is confidentiality to consider, as well as the risk of being identified by vengeful apparatchiks.Then again, why let the facts get in the way of a good old moan?"Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracyseeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards