Employer Banning Out Of Hours Socialising!

KiKi

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Similar issues on another thread started by the OP (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3040520). Requested advice, pertinent advice duly given. OP didn't like the advice or took exception to the posters and some toys made a rapid exit from the pram.

Oh, well that's familiar.

OP seems to be quite an angry person when frustrated by something that other people have a different opinion on. It's a shame, as taking some of the good advice on both this and the other thread (where he also ignored the advice of people who were knowledgeable and able to help) could have helped give some resolution to the situation.

Oh well.
KiKi

RuthnJasper

Perhaps we are seeing a new Jeremy Kyle in the making...?

Savvy_Sue

The whole point about sheltered housing is that some residents will be extremely independent, and others extremely vulnerable. Actually there's a Venn diagram in there, because I'm sure it's possible to be both extremely independent and vulnerable at the same time ...

dmg24

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

The whole point about sheltered housing is that some residents will be extremely independent, and others extremely vulnerable. Actually there's a Venn diagram in there, because I'm sure it's possible to be both extremely independent and vulnerable at the same time ...

You are absolutely right - it is the same argument that applies to those with mental health conditions and capacity - it is quite possible to be very poorly but still have capacity to make decisions, and vice versa.

RuthnJasper

You are so right about that Venn diagram, SavvySue and DMG. Not so long ago, I could barely exist without support. Now I am independent, coping, and so much stronger for the help I have been fortunate enough to have received. I still feel, though, that in either case there should be proper boundaries between carers and staff.

I can almost imagine the scenario - (Dinner Party setting) "And where did you meet your husband, Ruth?" "Oh, I saw him for a routine smear test - I couldn't resist!" Yuck!

Horace

It is professional to have proper boundaries between staff and 'clients'. People that live in sheltered accommodation tend to be a bit more vulnerable and can be open to being taken advantage of. I am not implying that the OP and his wife would take advantage but I can see the council's point of view in restricting social activities with residents outside of the day to day working of the warden.

Many years' ago I used to work for the probation service, one night I went to see a friend's band at a pub (a pub that I didn't normally go into) as soon as I walked in I was spotted by various clientele who attended the probation service - I had seen some of them that very day when they came to do their Community Service Orders. Rather than be seen in the pub which would have been classed as socialising with the clients, I left. Sure, I would have loved to have stayed to watch the band but I didnt dare risk losing my job. In other jobs, I have been asked out by students for a drink but as I was classed as a member of staff, I couldn't socialise with them because that would be overstepping the boundaries which are there to protect both sides.

OP you need to look at this from the council's point of view, their clients need to be protected as does your wife. Perhaps if she is so upset by the ruling, she should consider moving to a different occupation where she isnt in contact with vulnerable members of our society.

I can remember my late grandma who lived independently but she used to visit a day centre for old people so that she could have a bit of a social life and make friends, she used to love meeting up with her chums and going on trips but she stopped going because she felt that a member of staff had overstepped the mark as this person had started visiting her at home after becoming friendly with her at the centre. I know that this upset my grandma greatly because although she was independent she was also vulnerable - it meant that she could no longer go out and meet her friends at the centre because she was worried about bumping into this over friendly member of staff.

alwaysonthego_2

dmg24 wrote: »

I agree - I can't find anything on the CQC website, but the GSCC issues clear guidelines on personal relationships with clients. Whilst most of the cases that have been brought relate to sexual relationships, the clear message is that boundaries need to be put in place between professional and client.

The GSCC are very strict and one can be struck of the GSCC register if they found out the professional had been socialising with service users.

RuthnJasper

Horace wrote: »

It is professional to have proper boundaries between staff and 'clients'. People that live in sheltered accommodation tend to be a bit more vulnerable and can be open to being taken advantage of. I am not implying that the OP and his wife would take advantage but I can see the council's point of view in restricting social activities with residents outside of the day to day working of the warden.

Many years' ago I used to work for the probation service, one night I went to see a friend's band at a pub (a pub that I didn't normally go into) as soon as I walked in I was spotted by various clientele who attended the probation service - I had seen some of them that very day when they came to do their Community Service Orders. Rather than be seen in the pub which would have been classed as socialising with the clients, I left. Sure, I would have loved to have stayed to watch the band but I didnt dare risk losing my job. In other jobs, I have been asked out by students for a drink but as I was classed as a member of staff, I couldn't socialise with them because that would be overstepping the boundaries which are there to protect both sides.

OP you need to look at this from the council's point of view, their clients need to be protected as does your wife. Perhaps if she is so upset by the ruling, she should consider moving to a different occupation where she isnt in contact with vulnerable members of our society.

I can remember my late grandma who lived independently but she used to visit a day centre for old people so that she could have a bit of a social life and make friends, she used to love meeting up with her chums and going on trips but she stopped going because she felt that a member of staff had overstepped the mark as this person had started visiting her at home after becoming friendly with her at the centre. I know that this upset my grandma greatly because although she was independent she was also vulnerable - it meant that she could no longer go out and meet her friends at the centre because she was worried about bumping into this over friendly member of staff.

Wise words.

DVardysShadow

alwaysonthego wrote: »

The GSCC are very strict and one can be struck of the GSCC register if they found out the professional had been socialising with service users.

This is mission creep. The term used on the GSSC website is inappropriate relationship. IMO there is a world of difference between socialising and inappropriate relationship

alwaysonthego_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

This is mission creep. The term used on the GSSC website is inappropriate relationship. IMO there is a world of difference between socialising and inappropriate relationship

We have had it drummed into us and had serious talks about social workers struck off for being at the same night club as a service user. Due to the power difference it is unappropriate for professionals working with vulnerable adults to socialise, there needs to be boundaries in place to protect both parties. You only need to look on the community care forum to see anedotal evidence of social workers stuck off.