Should older workers be forced to retire?
Chief constables from two police forces have been given approval to order their officers to retire as part of cost-cutting measures. Should people be forced to retire even if they don't want to?
Police need to cut wage bills to find savings demanded by the government. Fully-sworn officers cannot be made redundant because they are Crown servants and not employees.
Under the regulations, officers can be "required to retire" if their retention would "not be in the general interests of efficiency". But it has been little used in the past and is likely to be strongly resisted by organisations representing police officers.
How would you feel if your boss ordered you to retire?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
Sorry but what an insane thing to even suggest. How can you force someone to retire???
Sorry but what an insane thing to even suggest. How can you force someone to retire???
Pretty much this. It's hard to imagine a circumstance where this is a good idea.
I'm not sure this is all being reported in context. The truth is (and this is stated in one article I've read but was lost in a plethora of text) Section A19 has always been in existence and my contention is it was probably used much more widely than is recognised.
It remains the discretion of the Chief Constable whether someone under the rank of Chief Officer should be granted the opportunity to continue working beyond their 30 years service.
This was pretty much shelved as a result of a potential staffing crisis. If you follow the recruitment trends of police forces, it's more efficient for them to recruit in large traunches. This means that in 30 years time, they will have a mass exodus. There was a point very recently (c2004) where approximately 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 police officers would reach "retirement" in unison, so Section A19 was deferred in favour of retaining police numbers.
However, now look at the logic:
As the then Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police pointed out, there is no regular fitness examination for serving police officers. This means that the "front line" could, in effect, be policed by staff who do not have a level of fitness required to conduct their duties.
Would this be allowed to happen in the fire brigade or the army?
For me, the focus should be very much on the ability of the candidate regardless of their age or length of service.
If you are unable to conduct the duties for which you were recuited, is it fair you should continue to occupy that role?
Ironically, in another discussion on this forum, people were actively promoting a change to employment law as it was "too difficult" to sack someone. Whilst this is certainly NOT sacking someone or even making them redundant, it does appear to give a slightly dichotomous stance, particularly in relation to people's views on the "public sector" and statutory services.
I think the reaction to the possibility of forces enacting Section A19 is knee-jerk and we should be evaluating what kind of service we want from our police forces (particularly the "front line) in the coming years as the CSR cuts bite and then seek the people best placed to deliver that service regardless of age; sex; creed; colour; length of service etc.
My first time I have logged on and a debate close to my heart.
On the one side, the UK Police Forces have grown significanyly over the 13 years when both Labour and the Conservatives tried to out do each other as who was the most supportive of Law & Order. The figure now being discussed is a potential loss of 40,000 officers. This would take the police back to 1997 levels. Is this a bad thing? Is it even possible with out evoking Regualation A19?
Car crime is down due to sophisticated security systems. Burlagry is down to due to the affordability of electronics. Etc.
Crime is actually going in two opposite directions.
1) Sophisticated criminal gangs who are just as likey to be developing 'e-crime' as thery are in bringing in drugs from overseas. These are hi-tech and well funded organisations with contacts and resources.
2) Anti Social Behaviour - Domestic violence - subsatnce abuse - youth 'crime' etc. These are normally random acts and they normally happen on a Friday night (say no more)
The question is WHAT should the UK Police Force look like in the 21st Centuary, and what resources do we need.
Then you can decide on the numbers required and the competencies that are desirable and where centralisation can save money (eg a National Serious Crime Squad - not 42 independant squads across the country)
Am I ranting? Or is this reorganisation something that CMI people would get excited about?
Hi Glen, welcome to CMI. That sounds like a reasonable perspective from my position as an outsider in the police. Do you have experience of the sector yourself?
I am currently working in the force (2 year fixed term contract). Interesting organisation to be in when technically the more successful you are, the less you are needed. Total success means that there is no crime, and if we got there, do we stop the business?
Luckily for the Police, human nature and the expectations of a modern western culture (not to mention the Tories upsetting students), there will be a need for them, but it seems to be more about public order and anti social behaviour as time goes on. (Tools of the Goverment?)
I did think rather cynically that the lack of Police cover for Tory HQ at Millbank during the student protest was a bit of a subtle point in these days of Public Sector Cutbacks.
Thanks for the welcome Adi
I did think rather cynically that the lack of Police cover for Tory HQ at Millbank during the student protest was a bit of a subtle point in these days of Public Sector Cutbacks.
I thought that as well. It kinda did the government good for their HQ to be trashed the way it was. Didn't exactly extend much sympathy to the students.