Employer Banning Out Of Hours Socialising!

SueC_2

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

"Dismissing anything"? I have so far disagreed with one comment!

I don't really understand why to be honest.

All I was suggesting was that an argument based around the interests of the service users / customers is probably going to be a stronger argument, and one that is taken more seriously, than one based on "I want".

Frankly I can't begin to imagine why you would think that is nonsense. But each to their own.

dmg24

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

There you go then. You have your answer.

I doubt they could legally stop you being in the same places as they are though.

I agree that they could not stop them, but the key in one of the GSCC cases was that the social worker had tried to keep their visits a secret. When it all came out, they were struck off the register.

Gordon_Hose

dmg24 wrote: »

I agree that they could not stop them, but the key in one of the GSCC cases was that the social worker had tried to keep their visits a secret. When it all came out, they were struck off the register.

TBH your post above pretty much sums up the probable reason behind the decision:

dmg24 wrote: »

Think about it from an outsiders point of view - you regularly visit a client outside of working hours. The client has a failing memory. The client's family visit, and comment that money/ jewellery has gone missing. The client isn't sure where it has gone, but does comment that you were there last night. Who is the first person that will be subject to investigation?

If I was the OP I'd respect my employers decision.

SueC_2

I'd go so far as to suggest that the inability to see why this move could be the 'right' thing, is actually testimony to why it is necessary.

dmg24

SueC wrote: »

I'd go so far as to suggest that the inability to see why this move could be the 'right' thing, is actually testimony to why it is necessary.

Spot on, even more so considering that the OP doesn't even work there.

WoodruffsDad

Over the past 5 years my wife (and I by default) has been actively encouraged by her employer to take part in events and to help organise them. This inevitably leads to residents becoming friends, and, indeed some residents were friends before my wife took up her present position.

Now she is being instructed to keep our friends at arms length.

Would you like it if your elderly relatives were living in sheltered accommodation which was more like a prison camp than a friendly meeting place of older people?

pipscot

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

This really is politically correct rubbish!

My wife's job is to look after elderly, often vulnerable residents. If she is not allowed to help arrange or take part in any social events with them or to interact with them in a personal level then the resident's lives will be less fulfilling as there will be less for them to do. The staff who look after them will also appear more remote and aloof and it will not be possible to spot the danger signals when someone really needs help.

It is evident from the replies to my post that many people replying have absolutely no idea what sheltered housing is about.

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

Over the past 5 years my wife (and I by default) has been actively encouraged by her employer to take part in events and to help organise them. This inevitably leads to residents becoming friends, and, indeed some residents were friends before my wife took up her present position.

Now she is being instructed to keep our friends at arms length.

Would you like it if your elderly relatives were living in sheltered accommodation which was more like a prison camp than a friendly meeting place of older people?

Looking after vulnerable people does not mean becoming "friends with them". Perhaps your wife's employer asked her to organise events assuming that a professional relationship would be maintained.

My experience is in education/health and I think these rules are to protect workers like your wife rather than make her life difficult. If your wife is already "friends" with a person she is asked to care for in a professional regard, she should declare a conflict of interest to her employer.

As i have said, I think the employer is acting legally.

SueC_2

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

Over the past 5 years my wife (and I by default) has been actively encouraged by her employer to take part in events and to help organise them. This inevitably leads to residents becoming friends, and, indeed some residents were friends before my wife took up her present position.

Now she is being instructed to keep our friends at arms length.

Would you like it if your elderly relatives were living in sheltered accommodation which was more like a prison camp than a friendly meeting place of older people?

Oh my goodness. I would sincerely hope that anyone providing services / support to vulnerable people of any kind would be only too aware of the huge gulf of difference between "being friendly towards" and "being friends with" the people they are caring for.

Caroline73_2

From what you have said, there is no reason why your wife and her colleagues cannot organise these outings and activities as part of their job.

The partners of employees have not been subjected to references, pova or crb checks. This leaves the council, and more importantly the vulnerable clients open to potential abuse.

Stop taking this action personally. If it were your confused parents spending a lot of time with the husband of an employee of their care home/accommodation, how could you be sure their intentions were altruistic?

Caroline73_2

I actually find the fact your wife cannot see that boundaries have blurred here quite worrying and think that some kind of training on boundaries and protection of the vulnerable adult is needed in her work place if all staff feel like the same as her.