Peter Kellner
:Cameron's EU Tactics Backfire
Deborah Jack
:End Homophobia to Reduce HIV
Philip Mansbridge
:G8 or Too Late: Obama, Cameron and G8 Heads Must Tackle Ivory Poaching Crisis Now
European Parliament Web Team
:Homophobia: One-In-Four LGBT People Victim of Violence or Threats in the Last Five Years
Neil Durkin
:A Week's Delay Should Suffice: Is the UK Still Dragging Its Feet on Guantánamo?
Last week the Police Federation voted unanimously to ballot their members on whether or not they wanted the right to strike. They argued that the reforms of police pay and conditions proposed by Tom Winsor to the Home Secretary leaves them with little choice. Whilst it is right that the Police Federation are advocating for their members this response is out of proportion, premature and is playing politics with public safety.
The last time the police went on strike was in 1919 and was because of their pay. A married Constable with five years' service and two children was paid £2 15 shillings, lower than that of the average unskilled labourer or agricultural worker. They were paid too little and it was right that their pay was increased.
Today, according to the Office of National Statistics, the median gross annual pay of officers is £40,402, almost double the UK average (£21,326). Over half (60%) of police officers receive a gross annual pay that puts them in the top 20% of earners in the UK. The predicament of today's police officers is far removed from the precedent set for them in 1919 and the right to strike should not be taken lightly.
It is the police officers' role in 'public safety' and the 'prevention of disorder or crime' that separates them (and the Army) from other public services and curtails their right to strike in Article 11(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This is with good reason, as there is clear evidence (see Sherman & Eck, 2002) that police strikes significantly increase crime and undermine public safety (this is also common sense).
Given the significant risks to public safety, any decision to even contemplate striking should be taken when all other avenues have been exhausted. They haven't been.
The Home Secretary has agreed to take forward Winsor's recent proposals, but they are a long way from being enacted. The next step is for the proposals to be negotiated by the Police Negotiating Board, where the Police Federation have a prominent role in defending the interests of its members. If, as is likely, there are points that are not agreed upon then they will be referred to the Independent Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) to pass judgement on the contended issues.
This process was set up, in part, to protect officers' inability to strike from being abused. Whilst the judgements made by the PAT are not legally binding on the Home Secretary, there is a strong political pressure for her to accept them (last time the Home Secretary accepted their recommendations in full).
That the Police Federation are campaigning for the right to strike rather than attempting to make the PAT's judgements binding is telling, and suggests that their desire for the right to strike goes beyond protecting their members from their current afflictions.
This is backed up by the fact that this is not the first time the Police Federation have campaigned for the right to strike. Back in 2008 they did so because the then Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, increased their pay by 1.9% rather than their desired 2.5% (by refusing to back date their pay). This was before the financial crisis and before any of Winsor's recommendations for changes to officers' pay and conditions were proposed or enacted.
It is therefore a good thing that a change in law is required to enable the Police Federation's members to go on strike, as this will require political approval. It is very unlikely that this will be granted, especially before the negotiations on Winsor's recent proposals have gone through the proper process I described above. It would also require public support, which is equally unlikely to be granted given the importance the public in England and Wales place on public safety.
Yet despite this, the Police Federation should not be jumping the gun and playing politics with public safety. It is a necessary and healthy part of the negotiations that they are advocating strongly for their members, but to so at the expense of public safety is a step too far.
Should the Police Be Allowed to Strike?
Angry UK police to seek right to strike
Police Federation vice-chairman says privatisation could destroy service
West Midlands Police cuts 'linked to sickness rise'
The French national police have threatened strike action over their government's decision to withdraw each officer's free bottle of wine they receive during their meal break WHILE they're on riot deployment. This is completely true, Google it.
The British police service has no tradition of this sort of industrial action in modern times. No police officer joined their force ever thinking they would go on strike.
The British police service and the British public deserve a fully independent Royal Commission into policing. The Police Federation have been calling for one for several years. Why hasn't the government commissioned one? Because they won't like the results?
As the article suggests, it wouldn't require (Westminister) political approval for the police to be given the right to strike. They would NEVER give it. However EVERY other European police officer is an EMPLOYEE of their state. Some have no strike 'agreements' ,others don't. No other police officer in Europe have this 'appointee' status. European police officers, unlike British officers, enjoy the same employment rights as other members of their societies.
No British government would ever pass legislation providing police officers with a right to strike. However without a doubt, a European court WILL.
This should never have been allowed to get to this stage. Police officer's facing criminals everyday who will use extreme violence against them to avoid being arrested. Officer's then being told they'll be sacked if they're injured while making arrests. Police officer's who've been paying £5,000 per year pension contributions, because they know they can't physically fight with the same criminals when they reach 58, 59, 60 years old, being told they now have to work until that age AND pass a fitness test every year alongside 18 year old police entrants. Officer's aged in their late 50's who fail this test will also be dismissed.
In 2008 the Government dragged out pay negotiations by refusing to accept the findings of the agreed pay formula. The negotiation went arbitration. The arbitration found in favour of the police federations.
The Home Secretary accepted the decision but because of her delaying tactics, the decision came months after the increase was due. She refused to backdate the pay award just because it saved money. This was seen by officers as being a sly and underhand tactic. Police officers know what is right & fair. This was not fair play.
Police officers have no right to industrial action to promote their cause. It is incumbent on the government to treat officers fairly. The previous home secretary and this one are not doing this. The police service provides a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week service to the community. Over 28 years I have worked anti-social shifts, weekends, bank holidays, Christmases and overtime without notice. I missed so many family occasions. All I asked was fair play and fair pay.
The Windsor report is purely an exercise in saving money, which takes hard earned money from officers pockets
Too right officers are angry and want to take action. No officers want to strike. They just want the ability to stand up for themselves against a government that is not listening to them.
Striking is a very important weapon, it is the sledge hammer to a brick wall and we all need the ability to use it. If we are talking about jobs in which striking would cause risk and danger and so they are banned from striking as are the Police and forces then clearly these are cases where they should have greater bargining powers, or ideally be in a situation where they never feel they have to resort to striking.
I know three police officers who have all said pretty well the same to me as in your message.
I can easily visualise the decline of police morale and morals to the extent before long, they could fall into graft and corruption.
It is one thing to have cops stepping over the mark when handling known crooks, and getting a tad nasty in order to get a cough, most ordinary people will tolerate a bit of that to feel safe in their community, but cops expecting backhanders is not the sort of police I want to have holding me or mine to ransom for a bung should I get nabbed speeding or drunk driving etc.
However, that is where we will be heading unless the cops get a fair shake of us, their employers.
Otherwise Mexico, or some other third world nation, will be taking over their training.
That said, with privatisation looming, that could well be the next step.;
My hours have been turned up on their head due to cuts, and I work in a department that doesn't take my career where I want it to go.
The only thing keeping me at the moment is job security. Currentley I cannot be made redundant. I accept we need to take our cuts in places like everybody else, but we are currently suffering it more than any other public sector role. On top of this Winsor is proposing the option to make Police redundant.
I don't want to see Police with the right to strike but if our job security can be threatened like any other public sector role then what choice do we have but to vote for the right to strike if this proposal is accepted?
If the government accept this particular suggestion then I don't feel I have any choice but to vote for it.
The Federation are rightly trying to show strength against what are frankly insane proposals that threaten the grass roots of Policing.
If you feel this is playing politics with public safety then the buck must first stop at Winsor and The Government reaction to his suggestions.
I would say to the general public. Don’t be fooled by any of this. It’s a smokescreen to cover up the fact that this is going to destroy what was until recently be best policing system in the world. The result of the Winsor report (which is supported by the Policy Exchange) will be the complete lack of independence in the use of police powers. Targets set by politicians who don’t live in the real world. If a constable didn’t use their powers the way their political masters wanted, he/she could be sacked for ‘poor performance’.
The rot set in with Sheehy in the early 1990s and this will just complete the process.
If you think its bad now, just wait!
Winsor wants new officers to earn 19k. I saw a job advert for a warehouseman today. The starting salary was over 19k plus perks. Do you see parity between the role of a constable and the role of a warehouseman?
Also, the average salary for a police constable is not 40k. Where did you get that figure from and does it include London Weighting for Met officers?
May I ask what the average salary of a Policy Exchange research fellow is?
Some other questions in the interests of transparency:
Who funds the Policy Exchange?
Why is the Policy Exchange a charity?
What ‘charitable’ work does it do?
What links does the Policy Exchange have with the Conservative Party?
Just asking!