Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
little fella

Fair Pay For Police march

Recommended Posts

The ?Fair Pay For Police? march will be taking place in London next Wednesday, 23rd January. Organised by the Police Federation, the march is expected to attract 15,000 people and will focus attention back onto the ongoing dispute over police pay.

 

I think that the 15,000 is a bit of an under estimate more like 30,000 officers plus their families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have tried every way to stop it. However the controlling body for demonstrations in London is the Met Police, they are taking part ~ 8000 met officers I understand.

I think that they can still apply to the high court for a judicial review but that may not give the result that the government want.

I wonder what will happen if it turns out unruly, no wonder that the PM has left the country. The special train leaves Bank Quay early doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to them....not that I think all of the police are worth what they are paid, however an agreement is an agreement and it should be honoured until it is properly renegotiated.

 

Think the Home Secretary/Government have well and truly shot themselves in the foot with this one.

 

Good point abour Mr Brown going to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it is a criminal offence in this country for a police office to withdraw his labour for which you can be sent to jail for 5 years. There are also many other offence in the Police Act on conduct which are not placed on civilians which are also criminal offences, there is also a wide ranging code of conduct for which many officers are internally dealt with.

I am not sure if it has been repealed but certainly 10 years ago you could not resign without permission. And it was a criminal offence to desert from duty; many ex Warrington officers were charge with desertion and sent to jail.

Certainly a loop hole that has been found as long as a particular force does not take action is to parade on duty and work somewhere else. It is also debatable if you refuse/forget to take a radio out or switch it on.

This is only the first practice demo so it should be interesting, the international press are going to be their watching and reporting it does show the country in a very poor light and the government will have to back down and loose even more credability, if they had any. The only person who will suffer is the public. The force is only managing to run at the moment by good will and that is getting very taught. Cheshire is the most underfunded and has the least amount of reserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't help thinking that the Human rights act will come into play at sometime with a "it is your human right to strike even if you are a copper" clause!!

 

The bloody criminals always find something in there to help them.... why not the cops!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a criminal act for Spartacus and his followers to withdraw their labour, and they finished up getting more than 5 years! :wink: If a group of workers decide to forgo their right to strike in return for a long term pay deal, that's fine as long as both sides honour such an agreement. :o:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make an interesting test case before ......... A JUDGE.... !!!!!! The police side have never agreed to the no strike clause It was made law and enforced as a result of the police strike, it is the same as the right not to have a union. The federation is very much like a union but cannot be a union or be afiliated to the TUC. No teeth just words.

 

[ 19.01.2008, 15:21: Message edited by: little fella ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My great grandfather died in the line of duty as a fireman in Warrington. His family got nothing.

 

I am sorry that the police have to resort to such a level to get people to notice their problems.

 

I have watched and read over the years on this forum about the police not being where they should be - could lack of funding be the real issue here? :blitzed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikes should never happen. It is a failure on behalf of the Employers to reward their Employees in a manner befitting their value.

Every time "A" Government puts restraints into place and pays less than inflation or the RPI, tells the Employees that they are unimportant.

RPI=Retail Price Index. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Peter:

Strikes should never happen. It is a failure on behalf of the Employers to reward their Employees in a manner befitting their value.

But Peter, an employer may take the view that the employee is already overpaid or well paid for the job he does and that the employee is expecting an unreasonable reward.

 

Always two sides to a story you know! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz,

I agree, but normally the Employer who has the problems is unscrupulous, or does not know how to deal with people. The old days have allegedly gone where man turned up at the gate looking for work, and a boss should respect his workforce. If they don't give value for money they should leave or be helped on their way. But at the same time, an Employer should also recognise "what" is a fair days work and react accordingly.

It's no good driving round in a Jag or Ferrari, if you are short changing your work force.

As for unreasonable, the relationship between the two should be sound and the rules and guide lines agreed. If one or the other renege on that,there will be problems that unless resolved early on, will escalate to a huge negative situation, where there are no winners but a Lose, Lose situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Police had an agreed procedure with the Government; which essentially meant annual pay was set by an independent arbiter - unfortunately; this Government reneged on an arrangement that's worked for quite a long time. :o:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A brief run down of how the government, (labour) have treated agreements on police pay. They have instigated all of the reports yet have renaged on all of them so it is nothing new. I dont know how much it has cost to have these Lords sit for months on end and then produce books hundreds of pages detailing their report. They last a few years and then cast aside. Legal agreements mean nothing to government. Scum of the earth.

 

 

The Police Act of 1919 was passed in response to a strike by officers over pay - which they won - and it forbade the police ever again to withdraw their labour or for officers to join a trade union (which, legally, the Federation is not).

 

Over the ensuing years, the Federation has faced Government hostility and had to fight difficult campaigns to ensure fairness for its members.

 

In 1931, the Government proposed pay cuts throughout the public sector. So strong was the Federation's opposition that the Home Secretary banned it from holding open meetings (i.e. mass meetings). The prohibition was not lifted until 1942.

 

The Federation also had a strained relationship with the wartime Home Secretary Herbert Morrison who, in 1944, summoned the whole of its governing Joint Central Committee to the Home Office where he told them that they must justify his decisions to the membership and not continue to press claims after he had ruled against them.

 

His action typified the disdain that various governments have over the years demonstrated towards the Police Service and the Federation, resulting in hostility to, and even victimisation of, Federation leaders.

 

After the War, many officers who had joined the armed services declined to rejoin their forces and recruitment proved extremely difficult. Morale was very low and police pay was far behind that of other workers.

 

A government inquiry in 1949 proposed an increase in pay and, crucially, recommended that for the first time the Federation could collect voluntary subscriptions from its membership.

 

These subscriptions, which began in 1955, formed what is known as the Voluntary Fund and gave the Federation vital financial muscle in its campaigns on behalf of officers.

 

In 1960, a Royal Commission recommended a substantial increase in police pay and in 1971, the Federation secured the largest negotiated police pay settlement ever. But by 1976, pay was again lagging far behind that of other sectors.

 

It was so low, in fact, that the press found some officers on supplementary benefit.

 

Pay talks broke down and the Federation balloted its members on the question of the right to strike, producing an overwhelming majority in favour.

 

The Government announced an independent inquiry into police pay to be headed by Lord Edmund-Davies which reported in 1978 and recommended a 45 per cent pay increase, part of which was compensation for officers' lack of the right to strike.

 

Edmund-Davies also recommended that police pay rises be liked to the national average.

 

The Government accepted the inquiry's findings.

 

In 1992, the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, announced an inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards under Sir Patrick Sheehy, who was chairman of BAT Industries.

 

The Sheehy report was published the following year.

 

It recommended the introduction of performance-related pay, short-term contracts, a 40-year pension scheme for new entrants or officers accepting promotion (instead of the existing 30-year scheme) and changes to the method of upgrading pay.

 

The Federation rejected the report and hired a public relations company to mount a campaign against it.

 

An open meeting was held at Wembley Arena which was attended by 23,000 officers who heard Federation leaders, along with the Superintendents' Association, a chief constable and leading politicians bitterly criticise the report.

 

Michael Howard, who succeeded Kennth Clarke as Home Secretary, rejected most of the Sheehy recommendations, although he altered the pay upgrading formula so that police pay would be liked to private sector non-manual pay settlements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by BazJ:

But Peter, an employer may take the view that the employee is already overpaid or well paid for the job he does and that the employee is expecting an unreasonable reward.

 

Always two sides to a story you know! :wink:

I have a neighbour who is a policeman who assures me that the police get a guaranteed pay rise of between 2-6% every year, over and above the annual pay rise and continues for the first 10 years as an officer. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×