Should the Police have a right to strike?

darich

Primrose wrote: »

No, I don't think the Police should have the right to strike. But yes, if an Independent Authority has recommended a pay award for them, I think the government should honour it. The police, like many other government-employed staff enjoy the benefit of a now almost unique final salary index linked pension scheme which for time indefinitely into the future is going to cost all of us taxpayers billions of pounds to fund when very few of us are enjoying a similar benefit ourselves. That alone takes the moral high ground away from under their feet. The harsh reality of this economic world is that nobody should be enjoying a public-funded indexed linked pension scheme. If people want a scheme like that they should be paying the contributions to fully fund it themselves. So whilst the police may feel aggrieved, I don't think morally they have a water-tight case for complaining.

Just because the police (and other government depts) have an excellent pension why shouldn't they be allowed to strike?
I and millions of other government employees pay a lot of money to the pension fund - i've been paying into mine since i was 17. Why shouldn't i or anyone else who's paid for it, have a final salary scheme?
The fact that we have something that many people would like doesn't mean we shouldn't be entitled to other things.

Like my payrise NEVER being more than 2.5% in 18 years of local government.
Cutbacks year after year to increase "efficiency".
Increased workload due to staff not being replaced but no increase in salary for the extra work.
Providing a service to the community so their bins are emptied, roads cleaned/repaired, schools built, children taught, streets lit etc etc etc
Police risking life and limb EVERY day to keep the streets safe for people like you to complain about others having a final salary pension.
Police dealing with the scum of the earth who never do anything good.

The police were recommended to receive a certain payrise by an independent body so MORALLY the government should honour that.

And you're complaining that because we have a good pension we're not entitled to anything else?

purplepixi

This is a very sore point in our house. Infact it gets us very angry.:mad:

My husband is in the RAF (and I was too, untill I left to become a housewife and start a home sewing business).

The police have a starting salary of £21k (correct me if I'm wrong). Which is brilliant. If I earnt that much when I first started a job like theirs I'd be thrilled. Obviously it then goes up each year, plus they get overtime pay, and extra for working on the weekends, and again depending on what rank they are they get paid more accordingly so.

Now, think back to when the firemen when on strike over their money. I don't recall the out come to be honest, due to the fact that as members of the Armed forces we were to busy doing their jobs for them than worrying about their pay scales. So inevitably, should the police go on strike, once again it will be the military that will be covering their backs and doing their jobs for them.

As a member of the Armed forces you are not aloud to strike (although this is meant to be true for the police force as well), and you are required to work 24 hours a day 365 days a year if you are asked to, and you can't moan about it (ok, that's a little extreme, but there is no overtime pay, an if you're needed in work, you have to go).

And as for pay. The starting salary for a member of the RAF (airman not officer) is £12,700. And when training is completed that person is expected to go where they are told, when they are told. This is where you find newly trained personnel at the age of 18 only earning £12-14K being sent to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where they are put under imense stress and see sights that most people will not see in their life times. And all they get in return for their hard work is a few pounds extra a day, and a token medal if they are out their for long enough.

It has taken my husband 5 years of service in the RAF, to be even close to reaching the starting salary of a police officer, and to be honest he won't recieve that until Dec 2008. OK, so he gets some benefits, such as free dental, free medical and cheaper housing, but if you saw the state of our housing you'd probably elect to rent or buy your own house.

So what does do we have to show for 5 years service in the RAF (8 years combined service)? Well one Iraq medal, a severe case of Post Traumatic Stress, a ruptured tendon caused in the work place, a house that has damp on all external walls, and the inability to plan anything as we could be moved tomorrow to a new camp! So is £19,500 per year a just amount to be paid for all of that? I'll let you make your own minds up about that.

So should the Police be allowd to strike? NO! There are boys and girls out defending our country (and others), that are expected to work much harder for much less. How many police officers would pack up their lives and go to Iraq because they were told to?

People (of all jobs and positions) should be paid what they are worth. Does a "beat bobby" earning £21K work harder than an Airman (or soldier/sailor) spending 6 months or more (away from their families) being rocketed in Iraq earning only £15k? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps all the of the country's Service Personnel, Civil Serants and Public Sector workers need a huge overhall of the pay scales, to bring them all into line?

Sorry to go on, but it makes my blood boil!

Andy_L

purplepixi wrote: »

This is a very sore point in our house. Infact it gets us very angry.:mad:

My husband is in the RAF (and I was too, untill I left to become a housewife and start a home sewing business).

The police have a starting salary of £21k (correct me if I'm wrong).

It's about that (varies slightly between forces though). However you're making the usual mistake that service personel make when comparing Police & Mil pay.

Yes a copper gets £21k on 1st appointment after training compared to the military on £15k however if they'd joined the Royal military police (I'm going to assume RAF Police & Navy do a similiar thing) they'd have started as a Lance Corporal on about £22k
You then need to trade off the overtime advantage of the police against paying market rates for food/accomodation & 9.5% deduction for their pension, the relative risk of getting injured/killed on duty & not having to go to the desert for 6 months.
Not really as simple as a 15k vs 21k comparision is it.

Middlers

I wish it was just 9.5% I had to pay into my pension. Try 11%!

lic

purplepixi wrote: »

This is a very sore point in our house. Infact it gets us very angry.:mad:

My husband is in the RAF (and I was too, untill I left to become a housewife and start a home sewing business).

The police have a starting salary of £21k (correct me if I'm wrong). Which is brilliant. If I earnt that much when I first started a job like theirs I'd be thrilled. Obviously it then goes up each year, plus they get overtime pay, and extra for working on the weekends, and again depending on what rank they are they get paid more accordingly so.

The starting salary quoted maybe true, but it does not go up year on year, it does for the first 10 years, but surely the services have similar schemes.
Overtime! Some Police Forces do not pay their officers overtime.
Extra money for working weekends? This is not true, nor do they get extra for working late or night shifts.
Promotion! Yes it exists, but it also is true of the services. However most Police Offiers do not want promotion, because they joined to be grass root officers, you know the ones that take all the c**p from within and outside of the service.


Now, think back to when the firemen when on strike over their money. I don't recall the out come to be honest, due to the fact that as members of the Armed forces we were to busy doing their jobs for them than worrying about their pay scales. So inevitably, should the police go on strike, once again it will be the military that will be covering their backs and doing their jobs for them.

Yes the Military did cover for the Fire Service, assisted by the Police. However, the service provided was understandably less professional than that of the Regular Fire Fighters. I do not mean to demean the efforts of the Military here, but stress the importance of the right people, doing the right job, with the right equipment and support.

As a member of the Armed forces you are not aloud to strike (although this is meant to be true for the police force as well), and you are required to work 24 hours a day 365 days a year if you are asked to, and you can't moan about it (ok, that's a little extreme, but there is no overtime pay, an if you're needed in work, you have to go).
This you will find in exactly the same for the Police (with the exception of overtime in some cases). A Police Officer is subject to a code of conduct 24/7, if an Officer sees something happening whilst off duty, that Officer is obliged to do something about it. Should he fail he maybe subject of discipline.
And as for pay. The starting salary for a member of the RAF (airman not officer) is £12,700. And when training is completed that person is expected to go where they are told, when they are told. This is where you find newly trained personnel at the age of 18 only earning £12-14K being sent to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where they are put under imense stress and see sights that most people will not see in their life times. And all they get in return for their hard work is a few pounds extra a day, and a token medal if they are out their for long enough.
The starting salary is different in both professions, however an airman knows what he will earn when he applies for the job, as does a Police Officer. Are ou saying that from the moment you start a job to the moment you finish you are not allowed to ask for more pay?
Similar to an airman a Police Officer when qualified can be sent anywhere in England and Wales, and Scotland (but this would be very unusual).
It is unfair to use Iraq and Afghanistan in this arguement, as the Military are employed to defend this Country. They are armed, and in war are not subject to the same restrictions on their actions as Police Officers. (Although a disagree with the wars mentioned in your post, I support our Military overseas and at home in what they do. I also think they should be paid a hell of a lot more, and when injured in battle should be given the best medical attention and after care possible, which of course includes compensation where it is deemed necessary)
Unarmed Police Officers face danger on our street everyday! Like members of the armed forces, some Police Officers commence a tour of duty and never return home!!
It has taken my husband 5 years of service in the RAF, to be even close to reaching the starting salary of a police officer, and to be honest he won't recieve that until Dec 2008. OK, so he gets some benefits, such as free dental, free medical and cheaper housing, but if you saw the state of our housing you'd probably elect to rent or buy your own house.
When your husband leaves the RAF, surely he can join the Police, if he wants. The two jobs are different in many ways and are also rewarded in different ways.
As for you accommodation, surely there is something the wives and families of the Military can do.

So what does do we have to show for 5 years service in the RAF (8 years combined service)? Well one Iraq medal, a severe case of Post Traumatic Stress, a ruptured tendon caused in the work place, a house that has damp on all external walls, and the inability to plan anything as we could be moved tomorrow to a new camp! So is £19,500 per year a just amount to be paid for all of that? I'll let you make your own minds up about that.
I agree the pay and conditions should be better. I suggest when it is his time to consider leaving the Military or staying on, he takes a good look at is lot and makes his decision accordingly.

So should the Police be allowd to strike? NO! There are boys and girls out defending our country (and others), that are expected to work much harder for much less. How many police officers would pack up their lives and go to Iraq because they were told to?
Again the job descriptions are different, and fighting in a foreign land was and is one of the conditions of service.
Do you think the conditions you have alluded to in your post would be as bad if Servicemen had the right to strike? I don't!

People (of all jobs and positions) should be paid what they are worth. Does a "beat bobby" earning £21K work harder than an Airman (or soldier/sailor) spending 6 months or more (away from their families) being rocketed in Iraq earning only £15k? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps all the of the country's Service Personnel, Civil Serants and Public Sector workers need a huge overhall of the pay scales, to bring them all into line?
I agree with you the Police are saying they are worth more. I think they are, and as I have stated already so are the Military. I do not know who works harder. But I can tell you a beat bobby works harder than a Superintendent, and am sure a squadie works harder than a general. I also know a nurse works harder than a consultant.

Sorry to go on, but it makes my blood boil!

What you miss in your post, is that the pay agreement was decided by arbitration. This process was agreed, the outcome of which is supposed to be binding on both sides. HMG have decided to ignore this as they lost the arguement.
The Police do not wish to strike, but what other recourse do they have when their employers lie to them, and cheat them when things do not go the employers way. It is not the money, it is the principle of trust, and the fact that the employer knows they cannot do any thing but accept it. Why do you think the Police and Nurses are now going to be given a 3 ear pay deal?
It is because neither organisation will go on strike, and they know it. All the Police want is the right to strike, not to actually go on strike but to threaten it and use the right as a bargaining tool.
The Prison Service went on strike last year. HMG are now talking about new laws to prevent them striking in the future, is this right do you think?

chrisxr2

I agree th\at the government is wrong but so are the police. Threatening to endanger the people of the Uk is out of order full stop, and the standrd of people that were in the police say 10 years ago would not have considered it beacuse proffesionalism and pride would not allow them to consider it. One year when i was in the RAf we got a 1 percrnt pay increase one year which was staged into two 0,5 increases. The cost of accomodatiobn and food went up and we actually ended up with a pay cut. And following the previous post re slaries not comparing. If you want more money as a police officer you can work overtime. How many of us have this opportunity. None.You know the risks when you joinn the police and if you wnat to destabilise the economy then off you trot.

lic

Do you really think that by paying the Police more, the economy would be de-stabalised?
Do you believe that Government stats are correct? Inflation running at approximately 2%! If that were the case, I would gladly take the increase in gas/electricity and petrol, not to mention Council Tax, which of course would only be 2% if the governent inflation figures were true. Funny how they miss out the cost of mortgages and other expenses we all have in their inflation figures isn't it?
You missed one of the most important points of my post, which is the Police do not want to strike, but without the right to strike they have no bargaining power with a goverment which will not listen to others, or abide by lawfull decisions which they disagree with.